"ALP" is NOT an acceptable explanation?

[jonathans]

alright well as of today i am issuing the state of jonathans license to read 1984 by george orwell to all massachusetts bureaucrats responsible for the license to carry that is not a license to carry

i'm sorry to report that most of the applicants are going to get "restrictions: instructional use only, not to implement" but that's just the way the chips fall, friends

 

[jonathans]

uh that's gonna run you $100, by the way. not a tax though, it's just a fee.

 

[OPM]

If you want A unrestricted, be ready with more than what was stated. Some chiefs want more than just general phrases. They want actionable scenarios from your life. Such as, “I am responsible for depositing at a bank my company’s weekly sales.” Some will push you with probing questions during the interview. Some will demand you state things in writing. Some will offer you restricted no matter what you say and you’ll have to decline it and insist that you need A unrestricted. This is no time to show them you chest hair as some here suggested. This is a time to be thoroughly educated on the subject and be prepared for anything that might come up. Search this forum and you’ll find the answers you seek.

 

[Emoto]

To the OP, many departments want an actual "reason", where as "ALP" is more of an description of a "non-restriction". IE. Think of it as answering this question I should be issued an LTC-A "ALP" because______.

I should be issued an LTC-A "ALP" because I read the Heller decision.

Kidding!

 

[BE4TNUT]

I would not recommend carrying concealed with that sort of restriction, whether you are going to the range or not. If your licensing officer wanted you to be able to carry concealed, he would have likely issued you an unrestricted license.

I completely agree and I would not recommend it either as I would side with caution and have it in a locked container. Just stating that the License To Carry is just that, but the restrictions tell you when you can and can't really. Being MA law I would always side with caution though.

I doubt that would fly with most licensing officers.

Yeah. Its more of a hypothetical situation where you technically are not breaking laws if you look up and look at birds from time to time throughout the day but I am sure your license would still be revoked for one reason or another.

 

[M1911]

Yeah. Its more of a hypothetical situation where you technically are not breaking laws if you look up and look at birds from time to time throughout the day but I am sure your license would still be revoked for one reason or another.

The law says that you must obey the restrictions. The restrictions mean what the licensing officer wants them to mean, not what you want them to mean. So if you don't follow his interpretation of the restrictions, you are breaking the law.

 

[jonathans]

I believe it is a civil offense rather than criminal, but I'm not sure on that. It could result in a $10,000 fine and loss of your license.

See MGL Chapter 140 Section 131, which reads, in part:



Full text here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131

You really should go to the MA web site and start reading the laws.

keep in mind i'm playing devil's advocate because i don't see the logic, but: you're such a threat/liability that you can't actually carry... but if you do, you get handed a citation or whatever... and then carry on along your way home to find your checkbook to pay it. what i'm saying is, it sounds to me like it's very likely that you're going to get arrested.

no thanks, not interested. as i am not victimizing anyone by living out my life peacefully and surrendering taxes regularly, they have no reason to step on my neck. whatever's written down outside the bible is functionally irrelevant.

 

[Kevlar]

...I have heard of someone who got a sporting restriction and so he took up "bird watching"...

...I doubt that would fly...

 

[M1911]

keep in mind i'm playing devil's advocate because i don't see the logic, but: you're such a threat/liability that you can't actually carry... but if you do, you get handed a citation or whatever... and then carry on along your way home to find your checkbook to pay it.

What part of "shall be cause for suspension or revocation" is unclear?

what i'm saying is, it sounds to me like it's very likely that you're going to get arrested.

That's unclear to me. Some offenses are not arrestable.

I suspect that the officer would submit a report that would make its way back to your licensing officer. Your licensing officer may then decide to revoke your LTC. You would find out about that when he sent a couple officers to your house to collect your LTC, your guns, and your ammunition. Your guns would then likely be sent to a bonded warehouse which would charge you $1 per day per gun.

The fine would be just the tip of the iceberg of the cost involved.

 

[M1911]

I wish I was that clever, but it was unintentional.

 

[jonathans]

The law says that you must obey the restrictions. The restrictions mean what the licensing officer wants them to mean, not what you want them to mean. So if you don't follow his interpretation of the restrictions, you are breaking the law.

and yet this is the sine qua non of the "rule of man," which is the absence of law. intolerable! i didn't realize it was actually this bad here.

 

[davemata]

interesting - to the OP when I submitted my papers on Monday, I had written: ALL LEGAL PURPOSES and was prepared to specifically defend my reasoning verbally.

Didn't need to.

 

[daveyburt]

it sounds like your green town is under a little pressure to interview a bit more thoroughly. Just state all your reasons. I've heard that if you're heavy on the "2ndA/constitutional rights" line, it's a little frowned upon.

when they input the info into the system, they may reword your explanation to "ALP"

-they just want you to be a little more specific.

there are some fine examples in this thread.

don't sweat it, just get it.
Good Luck!

 

[Another_David]

dupe

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/105122-REASON-FOR-REQUESTING-LTC

ALP is not a reason

"All Lawful Purposes" is what you are requesting. This is now often stated as "Restrictions: None" on the license.

The reason you are requesting ALP is what the licensing authority wants you fill in on the application to satisfy the Mass Gen Law requirement that "the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person...".

 

[jonathans]

That's unclear to me. Some offenses are not arrestable.

i think this is what i'm getting at. you accidentally print in the grocery store, and old mrs. brady calls the police and says the words "man with a gun" while you're busy debating whether to get butter or margarine. i've heard all the stories, they put you in cuffs and take your gun away long before they get your IDs. i'm not talking about the fallout from this incident, i'm talking about the incident itself.

you're telling me, you're actually going to get handed your gun back, and your license to not-at-all-carry, by that guy right there. it's not like you can sit on the tile while he calls up the licensing officer to find out the story on those restrictions, but they're printed on the card, so he shouldn't have to. and the restrictions are there because another part of the system has otherwise decided you can't carry. help me out here, what am i missing

 

[Kicker96FS]

I hate it when I see threads like this, the laws in this state allow for such abuse.

My town shocked me too. I had put personal protection, and stated a few reasons, like carrying large amount of cash at times and the like. While he was filling in the online PDF at his desk and I saw he was at the part that asked that I started to say the above and he said, "Oh, I don't care, you want a LTC-A right? Yep I said!

He didn't care if I put or said "so I can shoot stuff".

Every town should be like that.

 

[Independence Arms]

I think it's because they checked out your NES membership, and saw you weren't GREEN!

 

[Camhabib]

Not that it helps your situation any, but I was instructed by my town to just leave "ALP" and that I didn't need any other explanation or reasoning.

 

[wolf223]

i'd saved a copy of this a while back.

it here on NES somewhere, my search skills suck.

***template posted on NES***

*disclaimer, i am NOT the author nor a lawyer*

I'll make this VERY simple. Here is the generally applicable portion of a "letter to the chief" (which I submit as an addendum to the app):

[Paragraphs 1 through 3 are for SPECIFIC reasons, like employment, competition,etc.]

4. On the advice of counsel, to prevent any confusion or liability resulting from a misinterpretation of the terms and conditions of a restricted license*(p. 69, ¶ 3

5. Because it is the class and reason for issuance recommended by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police and is the most commonly issued class of license for that reason* (p. 69, ¶ 5);

6. Because one is either qualified to own handguns, or one is not; and

7. Because there is no liability to a licensing authority who issues an LTC to a qualified applicant, regardless of the class and reason for issuance.

8. Because it is the Reason For Issuance for Non-Resident Licenses and it is illogical to issue a Massachusetts citizen a lesser license.

I therefore apply for a Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC/A) issued for All Lawful Purposes or without restrictions



* See Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law (8th Ed.), Glidden, Ron C., “§ 131 Notes” at Page 70 and “Frequently Asked Questions,” ¶¶ 2 through 5 at Page 218; see also the 6th Edition, Summary,” ¶ 2 - “Class B NOT Recommended,” ¶ 3 - “Restricted LTC’s,” and ¶ 5 - “All Lawful Purpose” at Page 69; “ See also the 4th Edition at pages 181-183.


I trust you can manage the rest.

 

[OPM]

I have heard of someone who got a sporting restriction and so he took up "bird watching" so he could carry all the time. He learned a bunch about birds in the region so if he ever got stopped and questioned he could say that he he was going up to a certain point to look for birds to watch. I don't know if this is true or not but demonstrates how much gray area there is also.

This is the funniest and most retarded thing I heard all day. Please tell your friend he is dumbass and then a few times. Sporting/target purposes means shooting at a gun club. On the way to and from the range the weapon has to be unloaded and contained within the locked trunk or in a locked container. See MGL Chapter 140 Section 131c. If you friend gets stopped anywhere outside a range with a loaded gun, he can lose his LTC, be forced to pay a huge fine, lose his weapon, and if officer so wishes be arrested. Furthermore, in MA, I do not know of any birds he could legally hunt with a pistol in SD calibers. And most bird hunting seasons are short and you need a valid hunting license and in some cases a Fed stamp. So if he tells the cop he was bird watching, he could be arrested and face jail time. BTW, on the way to and from the hunting grounds MGL Chapter 140 Section 131c apply. Oh and what kind of birds he is watching/hunting in a movie, restaurant, mall, driving, etc.? Actually, hunting from a moving vehicle is illegal. Tell him to get a new hobby – like bank robbing or drug selling. With MA judicial system, if cut, he is likely to do less time than stating he was duck “watching” from a moving vehicle.

 

[Kevlar]

...help me out here, what am i missing

As M1911 said, it is a civil infraction. Further, there is ample case law holding that the mere report of "a man with a gun" does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to effect a detainment and search, much less an arrest.

 

[M1911]

i think this is what i'm getting at. you accidentally print in the grocery store, and old mrs. brady calls the police and says the words "man with a gun" while you're busy debating whether to get butter or margarine. i've heard all the stories, they put you in cuffs and take your gun away long before they get your IDs. i'm not talking about the fallout from this incident, i'm talking about the incident itself.

you're telling me, you're actually going to get handed your gun back, and your license to not-at-all-carry, by that guy right there. it's not like you can sit on the tile while he calls up the licensing officer to find out the story on those restrictions, but they're printed on the card, so he shouldn't have to. and the restrictions are there because another part of the system has otherwise decided you can't carry. help me out here, what am i missing

If an officer wants to arrest you, he'll probably find a way. That said, I don't think carrying outside of your restriction is an arrestable offense. For example, not feeding your parking meter is a civil offense and I don't believe a police officer can arrest you for it.

As an example of what can happen, a fellow with an unrestricted LTC was walking out of a pizza shop several years back. He was carrying the pizza in his hands and the wind blew his coat open. A police officer saw his gun and came over to talk to him. The fellow produced his LTC and the officer sent him on his way. The officer then submitted a report. That report made its way to the chief of the department where this fellow lived. That chief then decided he was not suitable and revoked his LTC.

If that fellow's LTC had been restricted, might the officer have confiscated his LTC and gun? Maybe. Maybe not. Might the officer try to find a way to arrest him? Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly wouldn't want to be in the LTC-holders shoes at that point.

 

[securityboy]

i think this is what i'm getting at. you accidentally print in the grocery store, and old mrs. brady calls the police and says the words "man with a gun" while you're busy debating whether to get butter or margarine. i've heard all the stories, they put you in cuffs and take your gun away long before they get your IDs. i'm not talking about the fallout from this incident, i'm talking about the incident itself.

you're telling me, you're actually going to get handed your gun back, and your license to not-at-all-carry, by that guy right there. it's not like you can sit on the tile while he calls up the licensing officer to find out the story on those restrictions, but they're printed on the card, so he shouldn't have to. and the restrictions are there because another part of the system has otherwise decided you can't carry. help me out here, what am i missing

It's really not that hard...but you can't stick your head in the sand with a statement like "i'm not talking about the fallout from this incident, i'm talking about the incident itself." because both are related...its all going to depend on the circumstances, ranging from not just what you say/do, but the "opinion" of the individual officer at the scene, etc...

But yes you could very well get "caught" at the grocery store, and NOT arrested, only to get a certified letter a day or two later from your licensing officer stating your license was revoked for carrying out of "restriction"...Like wise you could be arrested for "something" that day and have your LTC revoked for that...but just as likely nothing could happen to you...

THIS IS WHY "WHAT IF'S" DON'T WORK! (unless its an actual event you can not consider every variable). So "know" the regulations and don't break them unless you are willing to accept the most severe consiquence...In this case its is easy, if you have a restricted license get a lawyer and fight the restriction, but its probably a bad idea to ignore the restriction

 

[OPM]

i think this is what i'm getting at. you accidentally print in the grocery store, and old mrs. brady calls the police and says the words "man with a gun" while you're busy debating whether to get butter or margarine. i've heard all the stories, they put you in cuffs and take your gun away long before they get your IDs...

Nope. No handcuffs. They would shoot you. Read this forum. There are stories like that almost every other day. I once almost got shut by Framingham cops sitting in my car with a toy gun. Thank God I did not have a garden nozzle. Bottom line, do not be Joe Tactical in MA.

 

[jonathans]

If an officer wants to arrest you, he'll probably find a way. That said, I don't think carrying outside of your restriction is an arrestable offense. For example, not feeding your parking meter is a civil offense and I don't believe a police officer can arrest you for it.

As an example of what can happen, a fellow with an unrestricted LTC was walking out of a pizza shop several years back. He was carrying the pizza in his hands and the wind blew his coat open. A police officer saw his gun and came over to talk to him. The fellow produced his LTC and the officer sent him on his way. The officer then submitted a report. That report made its way to the chief of the department where this fellow lived. That chief then decided he was not suitable and revoked his LTC.

If that fellow's LTC had been restricted, might the officer have confiscated his LTC and gun? Maybe. Maybe not. Might the officer try to find a way to arrest him? Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly wouldn't want to be in the LTC-holders shoes at that point.

ok, that helps a lot. it's that the report is filed, that actually sets such a thing in motion. there's still leeway. a report may or may not be filed. if it was about something else, it may or may not mention a guy was carrying. and so on.

stick your head in the sand

it's not stuck in the sand, it's stuck in 1st gear. i'm figuring out what M1911 already knows. i think i got it now. i know quite intimately the story of the "what if" monkey, thanks. just prodding for an example.

 

[Sibb]

If push comes to shove I'd say protection and sporting. This can be argued to cover self defense of yourself and others and covers you for all recreational activities.

Might want to ping one a lawyers though.

 

[beaker]

Self-defense, target shooting and all lawful purposes.

That's all I put. Go simple.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[IrradiatedBacon]

All lawful purposes, including but not limited to: personal protection inside and outside of the home, target shooting, hunting, sporting, collecting of large capacity firearms, and defense against the king of england coming into my home.

 

[Len-2A Training]

ok, that helps a lot. it's that the report is filed, that actually sets such a thing in motion. there's still leeway. a report may or may not be filed. if it was about something else, it may or may not mention a guy was carrying. and so on.

Let me clue you in on some "inside information" . . .

These days, a REPORT is filed on EVERYTHING where an officer is dispatched to a scene!! It's called CYA and if the officer doesn't write a report on it, his ass is in a sling.

If an officer merely observes something, s/he can chose to write it up or NOT, but when dispatched, it MUST BE DOCUMENTED!

As advised above, don't ignore restrictions, it can bite you big time (and big $$$).

Carrying outside the restrictions is NOT an arrestable offense, but to use an analogy one of my Sgts taught me . . . "I can stop virtually any car and find 5 violations"! To put it in perspective, don't put yourself in a position where any officer starts looking for violations to slap you with. Getting lost in a crowd of one is very good advice.

 

[BE4TNUT]

Yeah. Its one of those dumb scenarios but "what if" things. Its not a friend of mine and I don't know anybody that would be dumb enough to risk it. I was just kinda pointing out how its all open to interpretation and however the police want to interpret it, will be very hard to fight so the moral of the story is not to risk it. I don't think this story was ever real but used as an argument as to how ridiculous the MA laws are here.