Your considered opinions...Restricted LTC and the Castle Doctrine

[WayneWong]

Does a restricted LTC infringe upon or prevent me from exercising my rights under the Castle Doctrine:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm

Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

 

[kevin9]

Some previous discussion of this topic here:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=21880

 

[Jose]

Why would it?

 

[WayneWong]

Some previous discussion of this topic here:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=21880

Right, I saw your post that a LEO told you that home self defense is OK, but I followed with a posting from a western mass PD that says police chiefs are in disagreement on it.

I can't find anything authoritative on it, so my take is that it is prohibited until I see otherwise in the general laws.


The point I'm making in this thread is that the Commonwealth has recognized that a person occupying a dwelling may use deadly force in the event of intrusion into a dwelling.


The Castle Doctrine describes a "person who is an occupant of a dwelling." I don't know how the State defines a dwelling. It doesn't make reference to the ownership or permanence of the dwelling. Can the dwelling be a camping tent, an RV, a motel room, a friend's house, a relative's house? Doesn't say it has to be my house.

So I'm saying that the Commonwealth recognizes my right to stand my ground in any "dwelling" I may legally occupy, however at the same time it is denying me the opportunity to legally exercise it.

 

[Another_David]

It's my understanding you can carry at your residence and place of business with a restricted license. See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-10.htm

It's probably best you don't let nosy neighbors witness this carry. Like open carry in Mass, police seem to view any disturbance caused by a firearm, perceived or real, as breach of the peace.

However, in Mass. your issuing authority seemingly has unlimited authority to make up any rules so it's a slippery slope. Mine gruffly told me that I could, "keep the gun at home for protection and use it at the range but that if we find you at a bar with it we're going to take it away."

Similarly it's my understanding you could carry long arms at home for protection but you couldn't do that in public with any license.

 

[vellnueve]

I'm pretty sure that a restricted LTC doesn't prevent you from shooting in self defense in a castle situation. I'm also pretty sure that that would be the least of your worries in such an incident.

 

[WayneWong]

I'm pretty sure that a restricted LTC doesn't prevent you from shooting in self defense in a castle situation. I'm also pretty sure that that would be the least of your worries in such an incident.

I know... I don't think anybody in their right mind would worry about it with someone coming at them through a broken window. I still don't see anything about self defense being allowed on a T&H permit.

 

[csharpdev]

I know... I don't think anybody in their right mind would worry about it with someone coming at them through a broken window. I still don't see anything about self defense being allowed on a T&H permit.

The intruder is the Target

 

[kevin9]

It's my understanding you can carry at your residence and place of business with a restricted license. See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-10.htm.

I presume you are referring to S10.a.1. I see that a straight-forward logical reading of that provision would allow carry in one's home on a restricted license. However, this is MA and "the law" so logic may not apply. Like WW I would be interested to know if this interpretation has even been definitively confirmed or denied (ex. by AG letter, or litigation, or ???).

 

[Another_David]

I presume you are referring to S10.a.1. I see that a straight-forward logical reading of that provision would allow carry in one's home on a restricted license. However, this is MA and "the law" so logic may not apply. Like WW I would be interested to know if this interpretation has even been definitively confirmed or denied (ex. by AG letter, or litigation, or ???).

I agree that an AG opinion or case law would be helpful and I noted in my post that the licensing authority has 'seemingly has unlimited authority'. [edit]

 

[WayneWong]

I presume you are referring to S10.a.1. I see that a straight-forward logical reading of that provision would allow carry in one's home on a restricted license. However, this is MA and "the law" so logic may not apply. Like WW I would be interested to know if this interpretation has even been definitively confirmed or denied (ex. by AG letter, or litigation, or ???).

That's just it, won't get resolved except by a test case.


Here's a hypothetical. BG breaks into your house, wifey calls 911. You grab your handgun and start chasing the guy. While he's shitting his pants and running for his life, he turns at you and aims his own gun. You shoot at him twice but miss because it's so dark. Both your bullets go through a window and lodge outside in a thick tree. BG's gun jams and he jumps out the window and flees into the night.

Cops show up, they check out your story. Chief wants to see you next day. Tells you "I don't want you firing that gun at anybody, it's supposed to be for target and hunting. You could have killed somebody." Ever see anybody that unreasonable? Sure, when they have an agenda. Takes your license, you get summoned to court and hash it out over the next 24 months.

Remember, some guy got into just as much shit when his jacket blew open and exposed his carry.

 

[WayneWong]

I agree that an AG opinion or case law would be helpful and I noted in my post that the licensing authority has 'seemingly has unlimited authority'. However if you look at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm the last sentence in paragraph (a) specifically exempts section 10 of chapter 269 from the licensing authority restrictions.

My overall interpretation is that you are not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm (that would result in a prison sentence) however you are still guilty of the restriction violation and subject to license revocation and a $10,000 fine.

 

[Jose]

If you are so concerned with this, buy a shotgun or pistol caliber carbine and be done with it.

Good grief, I cannot imagine what it must be like to have to second-guess one's every move regarding firearms. That is so f-ing alien.......

 

[vellnueve]

Unless your license specifically says "no personal protection," don't worry about it.

 

[Gabe]

...Good grief, I cannot imagine what it must be like to have to second-guess one's every move regarding firearms. That is so f-ing alien.......

When you are raised as a slave of the state, and this thinking is everywhere reinforced, it hard to think any differently. When you do learn that you've been manipulated and lied to and that you're not actually a slave no matter what the state thinks or says, you can get pretty angry and pretty disrespectful of the laws. That's why MA doesn't encourage free thinking or careful research.

 

[drgrant]

I know... I don't think anybody in their right mind would worry about it with someone coming at them through a broken window. I still don't see anything about self defense being allowed on a T&H permit.

IMO Worst case you'd lose your LTC and get hit with the big fine
(for violating the license restrictions) if the PD presses the issue,
but that sure as hell beats getting one's skull crushed by a home
invader with a large impact weapon or whatnot.

It does lead one to wonder if licensing restrictions even get
"played" out in a courtroom when an actual self defense shooting
has occurred. I wonder if legally speaking, one could use
"necessity defense" against the fine/revocation, or is it basically
an administrative penalty that is levied without due process? If
a person gets a license yanked in such a manner, can they appeal
the decision in a court of law?

-Mike

 

[Another_David]

My overall interpretation is that you are not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm (that would result in a prison sentence) however you are still guilty of the restriction violation and subject to license revocation and a $10,000 fine.

I think you're right. I edited my previous post so there's no further confusion. If you really want a definite answer you would have to ask your licensing authority that imposed the restriction. I wouldn't ask them this question though. Even if you did get an answer they could change their mind later and not inform you and you'd be SOL again.

 

[WayneWong]

I think you're right. I edited my previous post so there's no further confusion. If you really want a definite answer you would have to ask your licensing authority that imposed the restriction. I wouldn't ask them this question though. Even if you did get an answer they could change their mind later and not inform you and you'd be SOL again.

Not so fast, you may be on the right track. 269 and 140 deal with possession, not discharge.

Possession of a loaded weapon on private property is legal.
Discharge when the elements of the Castle Doctrine are met is legal.

There is no violation. However, that's not to say the chief isn't going to have a fit, but he could have a fit over what brand underwear you buy.

Jose...I've been applying for some non-resident permits and in doing so have reviewed the laws for several states. Yeah, here and there there are some things that aren't perfectly clear, but it's easy to stay out of trouble.

Here in Mass, it is a butt raping of prison proportions. You're lucky if you don't have to get interviewed, write an essay (I had to), and get a note from your doctor. Then after you explain why you're a suitable candidate, you get denied for ALP because nobody's threatened you recently. So you go get padlocks and trigger locks or slide locks or whatever the f* else you need, and a range bag, but you can't just use the range bag, you have to transport in a hard case. And then it has to go in your trunk, but if you don't have a trunk, you can use the far most portion of your SUV, except if you have a pick-up truck, then...look you get my point.

If you think this is silly, please hear me out here. I work in EMS and
am invited into homes and car wrecks about...15 times a week. If you ever need 911, you will be up to your ass in police, fire, and EMS who are busy scanning everything we can as soon as we walk in. Not to be nosy, but to see if there are any dangers, and trying to figure out what's going on.

Unless anybody here thinks they'll never get in a car wreck or will never have a home emergency, they need to not d*ck around with their permit.

 

[Twigg]

You need to take the Concealed Carry class given by GOAL.

Call, sign up, go. It's coming up soon.

Or you could just stake your personal freedom and financial well being on hear-say and free advice gleaned from the interweb.

 

[FunYun]

My overall interpretation is that you are not guilty of illegal possession of a firearm (that would result in a prison sentence) however you are still guilty of the restriction violation and subject to license revocation and a $10,000 fine.

If the restriction against carrying does not apply in your home, then how can other restrictions apply?

 

[kevin9]

If the restriction against carrying does not apply in your home, then how can other restrictions apply?

If by "other restrictions" other laws such as the AWB [spit] and consumer protection laws/regs [double-spit] then the answer is simple; those are other laws and regulations. This particular law has to do with licensing. The AWB has to do with possession not licensing. The CP laws/regs have to do with dealers not owners. The storage laws/reg have to do with what you have, not whether you can have. They are all different.

 

[clinotus]

For shame you all gleaned over the best reply in this thread, which was:

The intruder is the Target

But in all seriousness, a T&H or otherwise restricted license should not exempt you as the legal owner from keeping or using your firearm under castle doctrine. The scenario isn't you walking around the garage or the backyard but rather within your dwelling or legal dwelling in a situation where a reasonable person would resort to such means.

I do however digress to those who posted the actual MGLs.

This is the part of my post where I state the standard IANAL, and then further cross the fictional line to say that this or any state can pound sand if they think I'm going to sing kumbaya with some crackhead that broke into my house in broad daylight or under the cover of night. YMMV.

 

[Scrivener]

Here in Mass, it is a butt raping of prison proportions. You're lucky if you don't have to get interviewed, write an essay (I had to), and get a note from your doctor.

Interviews are neither excessive nor unusual; a statement of your reason(s) for issuance is part of the application.

However, there is NO statutory basis for a doctor's letter and many reasons to refuse providing one. If you provided one, it was YOUR choice to do so.

So you go get padlocks and trigger locks or slide locks or whatever the f* else you need, and a range bag, but you can't just use the range bag, you have to transport in a hard case.

FALSE INFORMATION. Show us the statute requiring a "hard case" for either storage or transport. Useful, yes; required - NO.

And then it has to go in your trunk, but if you don't have a trunk, you can use the far most portion of your SUV, except if you have a pick-up truck, then...look you get my point.

Yes. You don't know the law.

The "locked case" is required for transport if you DON'T have a locking trunk. If you do, you could put the gun in a paper bag. It would be a stupid way to transport, but it would meet the "locked container" requirement of the statute.

"The far most portion of your SUV" is more drivel. Unless your SUV/van/pickup has one of those slick, "secret" lockable little storage areas and your gun is locked in it, you need a locked case. Period. That "far corner" crap will cost you your license and time and money wasted in court defending such a stupid act.I

Unless anybody here thinks they'll never get in a car wreck or will never have a home emergency, they need to not d*ck around with their permit.

Now that's good advice!

 

[RKG]

This entire thread is premised on falsely conflating two quite distinct issues:

1) May one lawfully carry or possess?

2) May one lawfully use deadly force (in a given situation)?

What sort of license one has addresses only the first question.

The second question is not answered (in any respect) by what sort of license one has, but only the facts and circumstances of the use of deadly force.

Note: Since no license is required to privilege one to use deadly force in a situation in which deadly force is permissible, the notion of a license restriction along the lines of "No self defense" is anomolous. I have never seen a license so restricted. But assuming such a restriction existed, it would mean only that one couldn't carry for that reason; it would not mean that, by reason of having obtained such a license, one had lost his privilege of using deadly force in appropriate circumstances.

 

[WayneWong]

Interviews are neither excessive nor unusual; a statement of your reason(s) for issuance is part of the application.

Interviews are not excessive or unusual in Massachusetts. They don't seem to be common practice in most other states. Either one meets the statutory requirements or they don't.
An interview really makes the whole process subjective.

A check box for the reasons for issuance should be adequate, a person who is not a good writer should not be penalized because he can't communicate what the licensing authority wants to hear.

However, there is NO statutory basis for a doctor's letter and many reasons to refuse providing one. If you provided one, it was YOUR choice to do so.

I didn't provide a doctors note. I wasn't asked for one. My discussions with my doctor and my attorney are sacred. Just because the state doesn't prohibit it, that does not give a department the right to request it. Fact is, when the police request it there is pressure for the average person to provide it, and there is the reasonable expectation that if you don't provide it, it will go unfavorably for you.

FALSE INFORMATION. Show us the statute requiring a "hard case" for either storage or transport. Useful, yes; required - NO.

I guess you're right, it doesn't state "hard case" but it does refer to a secure container. In my non legal mind, I guess I confuse the two.

Yes. You don't know the law.

You're right, it's way too confusing for an average guy like myself, which is why I like to come here and learn more. Stop rolling your eyes, your face will get stuck that way.

The "locked case" is required for transport if you DON'T have a locking trunk. If you do, you could put the gun in a paper bag. It would be a stupid way to transport, but it would meet the "locked container" requirement of the statute.

What if I don't have a paper bag? Can I use a plastic one like you get at Target?

"The far most portion of your SUV" is more drivel. Unless your SUV/van/pickup has one of those slick, "secret" lockable little storage areas and your gun is locked in it, you need a locked case. Period. That "far corner" crap will cost you your license and time and money wasted in court defending such a stupid act.I

Yeah, the instructor was adamant about it being in a locked case and out of your immediate control by placing it as far away as possible.

Now that's good advice!

If you think so, maybe I need to reconsider it.


You seem to have your sh*t together. I wish you would use your analytical mind and sharp tongue to keep our overseers in line instead of needling us over our inadequacies.

 

[Coyote33]

Is it true or not that it is OK to carry on one's person to the range, since it is under your control? That one wasn't mentioned here from what I could see. Thanks. That said, I use a plastic toolbox (available at Home Depot for very little $$) with a padlock to take everything to the range.

 

[kevin9]

This entire thread is premised on falsely conflating two quite distinct issues:

1) May one lawfully carry or possess?

2) May one lawfully use deadly force (in a given situation)?

What sort of license one has addresses only the first question.

The second question is not answered (in any respect) by what sort of license one has, but only the facts and circumstances of the use of deadly force.

Note: Since no license is required to privilege one to use deadly force in a situation in which deadly force is permissible, the notion of a license restriction along the lines of "No self defense" is anomolous. I have never seen a license so restricted. But assuming such a restriction existed, it would mean only that one couldn't carry for that reason; it would not mean that, by reason of having obtained such a license, one had lost his privilege of using deadly force in appropriate circumstances.

If I'm reading you right counselor your answer to the OP's original question "Does a restricted LTC infringe upon or prevent me from exercising my rights under the Castle Doctrine" is "No". I think I even understand the logic. Thanks.

 

[WayneWong]

How about in an RV, tent, or motel room? Are these considered dwellings? Can you take a firearm with you to protect yourself in these environments, even if you are restricted to T&H (and firearms aren't prohibited by law)?

 

[RKG]

If I'm reading you right counselor your answer to the OP's original question "Does a restricted LTC infringe upon or prevent me from exercising my rights under the Castle Doctrine" is "No". I think I even understand the logic. Thanks.

Pretty much correct: my answer (if confined to one word, which is seldom successful) would be "No; level of license is not relevant to use of force."

 

[Jose]

How about in an RV, tent, or motel room? Are these considered dwellings? Can you take a firearm with you to protect yourself in these environments, even if you are restricted to T&H (and firearms aren't prohibited by law)?

If you were staying there on a target shooting or hunting trip, I'd say you are fine.

If you took it with you on some other kind of trip, then you might have some problem explaining it to your oversee....errr.....police chief.

If your trip happens to take you to a free state, don't worry about it. Whatever restrictions your police dept placed on your license don't mean sh*t outside of Massachussetts.