Class B can you carry with this permit??

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

henchmen77

Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
739
Likes
60
Location
MA
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
I have a class A (all lawfull) my buddie got a class B he has never carried before always had it for target and hunting so he thinks he can't carry on a class B even with it saying (all lawfull) on it.

From what I understand B and A only thing that is different is you can't carry more then 10 rds with a B and you can carry more then 10rds with a A but both can be issued for carry?? I had guys I worked with lived in boston were giving B and said all lawfull on them and carry for work we did.

Need some people with facts on this with thanks guys.
 
henchmen77 said:
I have a class A (all lawfull [sic]) my buddie [sic] got a class B he has never carried before always had it for target and hunting so he thinks he can't carry on a class B even with it saying (all lawfull [sic]) on it.

From what I understand B and A only thing that is different is you can't carry more then [sic] 10 rds with a B and you can carry more then [sic] 10rds with a A but both can be issued for carry?? I had guys I worked with lived in boston were giving B and said all lawfull [sic] on them and carry for work we did.

Need some people with facts on this with thanks guys.
Click to expand...

You and co-workers are egregiously misinformed, and not just as regards punctuation and spelling.

The ONLY class which allows "carrying;" i.e., loaded and concealed on your person, is Class A. A "B" does NOT permit carrying (other than at one's home or business) and does not permit possession of "large capacity" (more than 10 rounds) handguns.

This has been covered before in the 18 months you've been here. A search here should have kicked up threads on the subject; using the GOAL site (are you even a member?) would have also provided info, had you bothered to look.
 
Well just woke up so get over the spelling there buddie.

And why would they issue it for (all lawfully)?? they are issued for carrying when it states that.

Class B just limt the # of rounds to be carried, nothing I have seen on state sites shows me you can't carry on a B permit.

Why would his local PD put for All Lawfully??? They knew he was asking to carry other wise it would have stated target and hunting.
 
Henchmen77, I recommend that you pay close, careful attention to what Scrivener has written. He is dead on with his advice.

If all one has is a Class B LTC, or a Class A LTC restricted to Sport & Target, or Target & Hunting, or anything other than All Lawful Purposes, it is not lawful to carry a firearm in public. Scrivener and I often call people who ignore this sage advice "clients".

Darius Arbabi
 
Last edited:
henchmen77 said:
Class B just limt the # of rounds to be carried, nothing I have seen on state sites shows me you can't carry on a B permit.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Some departments issue ALL their licenses
as ALP, and they use the "Class B" as their "neutering mechanism" so to
speak. If the PD rammed a Class B down your friend's throat, they
most -certainly- don't want him carrying a loaded gun.

If you actually -read the law- you will quickly find out that a Class B
license does not allow carrying a loaded handgun. Do some searches
here and you'll probably find more than one discussion about
it.


-Mike
 
Should you decide to carry open and unloaded on your class “B” because the law states that you cannot carry a loaded and concealed firearm on your person, I would also suggest carrying either Cross-x or Scriveners’ work number on you also.

The three places you can carry a loaded firearm concealed on your person is in your home, on a range, or in Vermont or Alaska. You may be able to get a Pistol and Revolver Permit for New Hampshire also but I haven’t kept up with NH issuing regarding not having an LTC-A for ALP.
 
Ok guys what I have said is his B permit says (all Lawfully) on it issued from the dept he asked for target and hunting and when he picked it up they put in on there as (all lawfully).

How is it that a B permit states (all lawfully) and you can't carry?? A class B permit is for limited cap under 10 rds. Both permits if issued as all lawfully stated on them means you can carry how is it other wise??

please show me some facts of a B permit stating (all lawfully) not being able to carry with that permit?? because all things being when a permit states (all lawfully) on it what else does it mean?? that term replaced the old one which said for life and property did it not?
 
Try looking in Mass General Laws.
(b) A Class B license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) non-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 such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper; provided, however, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place; and provided further, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to possess a large capacity firearm, except under a Class A club license issued under this section or under the direct supervision of a holder of a valid Class A license at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity rifles and shotguns, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as he deems proper. A violation of a restriction provided under this paragraph, or a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph, shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.
Click to expand...

It took me about 2 minutes to find that. Try listening when two firearms lawyers tell you something; you might learn something.

As for what Class B means? Your friend is screwed, that's what.
 
Last edited:
An "Advanced Search" would have turned up LOTS of threads where this was discussed before!

- NOTHING prevents a chief from issuing a LTC that states "only while eating a ham sandwich" as the restriction! Understand this . . . it is essentially a blank space which a chief can fill in any which way he/she chooses!

- "All Lawful Purposes" means just that. The Law says that it is NOT LAWFUL to carry a gun with a LTC-B. Thus, no confusion here to those that can understand laws. He can NOT legally carry a gun, with the few exceptions noted by the attorneys above. Doing differently leaves him open to prosecution for violating the law, plus loss of LTC for life (likely administrative outcome as a minimum)!

- LTC-B does NOT just restrict how many rounds, but also restricts WHICH GUNS one can possess/buy, which MAGS one can possess/buy, etc.

I suggest a trip down to AFS in No. Attleboro and a small investment in Ron Glidden's book. It's all spelled out there in Law and then in footnotes explaining it in plain language. A lot cheaper than hiring either Scrivener or Cross-X!
 
LenS said:
I suggest a trip down to AFS in No. Attleboro and a small investment in Ron Glidden's book. It's all spelled out there in Law and then in footnotes explaining it in plain language. A lot cheaper than hiring either Scrivener or Cross-X!
Click to expand...

Good advice, but the OP has made it painfully obvious he is incapable of grasping it, even when spoon-fed to him by those who actually have a clue.

Do you really think someone too lazy to do a quick search, join GOAL, or even distinguish parentheses from quotation marks has the industry to actually go buy a book or the intelligence to read and comprehend it?
 
Scriv, please try real hard to reduce/eliminate the sarcasm.

You are "on point" but let's try to be more civil about it, please.

Thanks.
The Management
 
henchmen77 said:
Ok guys what I have said is his B permit says (all Lawfully) on it issued from the dept he asked for target and hunting and when he picked it up they put in on there as (all lawfully).

How is it that a B permit states (all lawfully) and you can't carry?? A class B permit is for limited cap under 10 rds. Both permits if issued as all lawfully stated on them means you can carry how is it other wise??

please show me some facts of a B permit stating (all lawfully) not being able to carry with that permit?? because all things being when a permit states (all lawfully) on it what else does it mean?? that term replaced the old one which said for life and property did it not?
Click to expand...

OK. You've got a Class B LTC that states "All Lawfully" under the restrictions. I'll assume that this is the equivalent of "All Lawful Purposes", meaning that you're entitled to do anything that the law allows, with no ad hoc restrictions imposed by the licensing authority. Now look at the law to see what's actually lawful for someone with a Class B LTC. You'll see that it plainly states that one of the things that isn't lawful is carrying a loaded firearm concealed. A logician might argue that this doesn't prohibit carrying an unloaded firearm concealed, or a loaded firearm openly. While the logician would would be correct, he would have overlooked the fact that the law (as interpreted by the courts, which is all that really matters for practical purposes) doesn't follow simple logic, but a sequence of precedents, many of which stretch the law in one direction or another. This approach, if carried far enough can sometimes lead to decisions that would appear to directly contradict the plain text of the law. In this case, that sort of stretch is hardly required. As a result,, following the logician's analysis would likely put one in a world of hurt.

Ken
 
I don't understand the personal attacks. If you want to give the guy the advice he asks for then give him the advice. Why rake him about searches and follow-up questions.

If you have a hair across your a$$ for some reason then don't respond. It makes it very unpleasant to come out here. Lots of good advice but the sarcasm is not needed.
 
sksguns said:
I don't understand the personal attacks. If you want to give the guy the advice he asks for then give him the advice. Why rake him about searches and follow-up questions.

If you have a hair across your a$$ for some reason then don't respond. It makes it very unpleasant to come out here. Lots of good advice but the sarcasm is not needed.
Click to expand...

SKS- if you read most of the posts on here you'll find that it's one of the best managed sites out there with some truly great people. Some sarcasm certainly gets thru and isn't necessary but one could argue in this case that it's a very important issue that all gun owners NEED to know... and arguing with two of the most knowledgeable attorneys in the field doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. That being said I'm not fond of bashing people that don't search... it is a forum after all....
 
Lugnut said:
SKS- if you read most of the posts on here you'll find that it's one of the best managed sites out there with some truly great people. Some sarcasm certainly gets thru and isn't necessary but one could argue in this case that it's a very important issue that all gun owners NEED to know... and arguing with two of the most knowledgeable attorneys in the field doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it. That being said I'm not fond of bashing people that don't search... it is a forum after all....
Click to expand...

I have no issue about the management of the site and sarcasm is welcome if it's funny and not personal. Maybe the stuff was posted a billion times but this is a chat room for people with a common interest in firearms. I did the search after and Class B and ALP and gun laws come up in a lot of threads that don't specifically answer this question and any one that did took considerable time to find given what I had to sift through. But I'm new her and am not familiar with this forum yet.

I saw the quotes from the MGL and I know it's on goal but some out here make it like the only stupid question is the one that was already asked.

Some of us don't have the time to go through 500 threads to find that specific answer and as such when we do ask a question it would be nice if people had a little respect for each other with their answers.

Not all of us a lawyers or work in law enforcement and some of us use this forum as an avenue to further educate ourselves with the ever changing legislation regarding firearms law.

I appreciate that people with such knowledge chat out here and make themselves available with their free advice and interpretation of the laws concerning firearms ownership. But the personal attacks on belittling on poeple because a question was already answered seems unnecessary.

All the guy wants to do is give his friend the correct answer and maybe tell him about the great site that he got his info from. But with that kind of hassle I myself will think twice before I ask any questions out here.
 
sksguns said:
Maybe the stuff was posted a billion times but this is a chat room for people with a common interest in firearms.
Click to expand...

NO, it isn't a "chat room." If that's what you want, go to MyWebSpace and the DU.


I did the search after and Class B and ALP and gun laws come up in a lot of threads that don't specifically answer this question and any one that did took considerable time to find given what I had to sift through. But I'm new her and am not familiar with this forum yet.

I saw the quotes from the MGL and I know it's on goal but some out here make it like the only stupid question is the one that was already asked.
Click to expand...

If you found it, the OP you're defending could - and should - have. Note that Dwarven1 found the relevant MGL in 2 minutes. No-one here, myself included, minds helping people out (right, Lynne?). However, those too inert to make any effort to look, too unmotivated/cheap/excuse of your choice to support GOAL, and too obtuse to accept the answers when they are HANDED to them do not warrant the board's time or your rationalizations of their irresponsible antics.

Some of us don't have the time to go through 500 threads to find that specific answer and as such when we do ask a question it would be nice if people had a little respect for each other with their answers.
Click to expand...

Not to mention some gratitude, instead of attitude, when the answers they couldn't be bothered finding on their own are provided, instead of responding with inane arguments over black letter law. [slap]
 
SKS- I'm not aruguing with your response because I too agree with most of what you're saying. I will say that as a gun owner in the crazy state, the burden is enirely yours (or that friends') to understand the laws and restrictions and the consequences of not knowing them are pretty serious in most cases. All I'm saying is that this web site isn't nor should it be the only source of information on MA gun laws. When two attorneys respond with sound legal advice and it gets questioned... I don't know what to say. Mr. Scriv. is known to be harsh but he's accurate... take it for what it's worth. This is best site for general gun information locally- so it would be a loss if someone turned away because of this. If you go to most other sites in other states- most people just post about how stupid our laws are and we're all fools for living here. I think you get a well balanced view here. I don't know why some feel like bashing people for their ignorance but in MA- ignorance on the gun laws isn't helping any of us, trust me.
 
Lugnut said:
SKS- I'm not aruguing with your response because I too agree with most of what you're saying. I will say that as a gun owner in the crazy state, the burden is enirely yours (or that friends') to understand the laws and restrictions and the consequences of not knowing them are pretty serious in most cases. All I'm saying is that this web site isn't nor should it be the only source of information on MA gun laws. When two attorneys respond with sound legal advice and it gets questioned... I don't know what to say. Mr. Scriv. is known to be harsh but he's accurate... take it for what it's worth. This is best site for general gun information locally- so it would be a loss if someone turned away because of this. If you go to most other sites in other states- most people just post about how stupid our laws are and we're all fools for living here. I think you get a well balanced view here. I don't know why some feel like bashing people for their ignorance but in MA- ignorance on the gun laws isn't helping any of us, trust me.
Click to expand...

I understand. My apologies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
735
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
I was very surpised to see mass.gov admits this…
Replies
10
Views
563
greencobra
greencobra
Can you "deregister" a previously built AR?
Replies
15
Views
840
pastera
pastera
P/W muzzle brake with attachments
Replies
18
Views
621
Lxpony
Lxpony
Is Dept. of CJIS off limits for concealed carry?
Replies
29
Views
778
gruby254
gruby254
Back
Top Bottom