LTC Just Received and some confusion A NEWBIE

[wren1a]

I would like to get a straight forward answer to the following question:
I have just received from my local Police Dept (who has an intrem chief) My
LTC after my application was approved. I had submitted a letter with it
regarding my character etc. and long residency , that I had hunted,that I
was a re-enactor and knew gun saftey ,and that I had been CORI checked twice
already for Medical Reserve Corps and had applied for and received a FULL
FID....

When I got my LTC in the mail on it was the restriction of Target and
hunting
BUT was Class A with Large Capacity: (naturally I was expecting NONE for
"restriction"...I had taken and passed the course as required.

Here is where I am quite confused...May I carry my new 357 in a holster on
my person loaded or unloaded to the Range OR do I have to have a trigger
lock on it IF its in a holster on MY PERSON CONCEALED
.Also IS IT POSSIBLE that after 5 years the restrictions may be lifted if I
have NO problems ...I do obey the laws and actually now my 357 is in a
locked Smith and Wesson factory case and also I have a combination trigger
lock on it inside the case and my ammunition locked in My Safe for now....

what is confusion to me also is the Massachusetts Castle Law contridicts the
law that requires you to keep your firearm locked up...Thankyou from a 1st
timer trying to do the right things..(Although I DO DESIRE A RIGHT TO CARRY)
thankyou So Much for your valuable time its appreciated

 

[Dtess17]

You can not carry the gun on your person at all.
If you are going to the range the gun must be in a locked case in your trunk, unloaded with ammo in a separate case.

Also it is possible that you might get the restriction lifted after a few years, but that depends on where you live. Some towns in MA suck much more than others.

Bottom line is DO NOT carry this gun on your person.

 

[Flyer007]

Best is to ask the lic. officer in town. Also if you have a new intrem chief see if they will remove the restrictions...

 

[yanici]

If you don't mind telling us, what city or town is this that you reside in?

 

[6hold]

wren1a ~ Welcome to Northeast Shooters and good luck with your shooting.​

`

 

[jenlynn724]

My city puts a sporting restriction an ALL new LTC's.. I was told that I can carry it loaded any time I go to the range, or camping, hiking, etc..

 

[pdm]

My city puts a sporting restriction an ALL new LTC's.. I was told that I can carry it loaded any time I go to the range, or camping, hiking, etc..

If you're not in the same city when you do that, i wouldn't count on that.

 

[KMaurer]

The first response you got was basically correct, though a bit overly cautious. The gun needs to be unloaded and in either the locked trunk or a locked container. No, the storage law doesn't conflict with the Castle Doctrine, since you're allowed to have your gun unlocked and loaded in your home as long as it's under your direct control.

Ken

 

[jenlynn724]

If you're not in the same city when you do that, i wouldn't count on that.

someone posted this before, and it is exactly how it was explained to me by my department..
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59825

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also IS IT POSSIBLE that after 5 years the restrictions may be lifted if I
have NO problems

It is possible to do this after one day - it's completely up to the chief.

If you are going to the range the gun must be in a locked case in your trunk, unloaded with ammo in a separate case.

According to interpretation published by the EOPS, the trunk counts as a locked case when the unloaded gun is stored, and I have not been able to find any statute that states that the ammo must be in a separate case. While what you are suggesting is certainly not a bad idea, there is no "locked case" requirement (except for high cap long guns), and no statute that says you may not carry ammo in your gun bag because you have a target permit.

There is enough bad information out there - please be careful what you present as "fact" when what you are really doing is offering what may be good advice, but is not required by law (at least not to the extent that you seem to think).

Bottom line is DO NOT carry this gun on your person.

Good advice though there is a bit of ambiguity as to exactly what the restriction means, clarifying said ambiguity could get might expensive.

 

[hunter46spring]

You can not carry the gun on your person at all.
If you are going to the range the gun must be in a locked case in your trunk, unloaded with ammo in a separate case.

Also it is possible that you might get the restriction lifted after a few years, but that depends on where you live. Some towns in MA suck much more than others.

Bottom line is DO NOT carry this gun on your person.

This is not necessarily true. It is at the discretion of your issuing agency. If they say you can carry to and from the range with that restriction then you can. The trend is now that a target and hunting resrtiction does allow concealed carry on your person but, again, it strictly up to the issuing authority. EG; an LTC-A w/ a target and hunting restriction issued in one town would allow to and from range carry but the same license with the same restriction issued in the next town over may NOT allow you to do so. The only ray of light in this confusing mess is you only have to obey restriction as YOUR issuing authority views it not as it is viewed by the police in the town that you are in. I would contact your licensing officer to determine what the definition is for their agencys permits

These are the definitions that the FRB wants issuing authorities to use. But it can not and does not tell them they have to use them, it is only a guide line.

None: The LTC is issued for all lawful purposes with no restrictions. This is used for all FID cards, as by statute, they may not be issued with any restrictions imposed.

Target and Hunting: Restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; and for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns). Includes travel to and from activity location.

Sporting: Restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; and for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns); and for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, or similar activities. Includes travel to and from activity location.

Employment: Restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities, or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carrying of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.

Other: The licensing authority creates a restriction it deems proper.

 

[Reptile]

Welcome to the forum Wren1a.

 

[pdm]

This is not necessarily true. It is at the discretion of your issuing agency. If they say you can carry to and from the range with that restriction then you can. The trend is now that a target and hunting resrtiction does allow concealed carry on your person but, again, it strictly up to the issuing authority. EG; an LTC-A w/ a target and hunting restriction issued in one town would allow to and from range carry but the same license with the same restriction issued in the next town over may NOT allow you to do so. The only ray of light in this confusing mess is you only have to obey restriction as YOUR issuing authority views it not as it is viewed by the police in the town that you are in. I would contact your licensing officer to determine what the definition is for their agencys permits

Yeah, but another town/city's police can arrest you anyway if they disagree. The only "safe" LTC-A is an unrestricted one.

 

[steveyc272]

Yeah, but another town/city's police can arrest you anyway if they disagree. The only "safe" LTC-A is an unrestricted one.

Right. While your licensing officer may stand up for you and resolve the issue out of court, you would most likely be prosecuted and set a very expensive precedent!

 

[hunter46spring]

Yeah, but another town/city's police can arrest you anyway if they disagree. The only "safe" LTC-A is an unrestricted one.

I agree that an unrestricted LTC-A is the only way to go, but you CAN NOT be arrested as long as you are adhearing to the restriction as defined by the issuing agency. It does not matter what the definition is in the town where you are at that moment only that you are following the restiction of your issuing agency. even if you were in blatent violation of your restriction there is no right of arrest (there are still fines). However, they can notify the issuing agency and have your license revoked.

 

[Preachers Sheets]

I have the same restriction; I was told I can carry concealed to/from the range. If I get stopped I get stopped, I was told I could carry. I'm not breaking any law, if another cop in another town will dislike the fact I'm carrying he is going to bust my chops as much as they would to someone with an unrestricted Class A LTC just because....

It's legal to carry to the range, being comfortable to do it is up to you but legally; yes you can.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I have the same restriction; I was told I can carry concealed to/from the range. If I get stopped I get stopped, I was told I could carry. I'm not breaking any law, if another cop in another town will dislike the fact I'm carrying he is going to bust my chops as much as they would to someone with an unrestricted Class A LTC just because....

It's legal to carry to the range, being comfortable to do it is up to you but legally; yes you can.

being told does not count. get it in writing on department letterhead.

 

[Bill Nance]

being told does not count. get it in writing on department letterhead.

Correct....but good luck ever getting a governmental agency to clarify something like this. It's not even an anti thing, they're always worried a specific clarification could come back to bit them in the ass.

Not excusing the behavior, but that's how it works.

 

[dagwag77]

Correct....but good luck ever getting a governmental agency to clarify something like this. It's not even an anti thing, they're always worried a specific clarification could come back to bit them in the ass.

Not excusing the behavior, but that's how it works.

which means you're just as much up shits creek without a paddle if you get stopped by another PD while carrying on a restricted license. Its not the persons who told you its OK's ass on the line, its YOUR ASS ON THE LINE! so wise up, do whats safe for your ass.

 

[jenlynn724]

As far as I'm concerned, I will carry whenever, I am going to and from the range, and running, rollerblading, etc.. I do not believe anyone will be prosecuted for that, because even the authorities know that there is such a grey area when defining the said restrictions. Each town can essentially decide what it means to them. I was informed by my local pd what their definition of legal is.. This is my choice to do so, an so I will,

 

[dagwag77]

Repost of some good advice from an attorney.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=24364

"Caselaw TIME AND AGAIN has ruled that, becasue [sic] MGL NO WHERE specifies ANY restrictions that can STOP a CLASS-A holder from CARRYING CONCEALED, that said "restrictions" are absolutetly [sic] frivolous..."

What utter drivel. Your "TIME AND TIME AGAIN" consists of ONE (1) case; a mere district court decision. That single decision has been NEGATED by the new LTCs, which have borne the language "RESTRICTION(S)" instead of "Reason For Issuance since at least July.

Here's the statute - AGAIN:

"(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; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, 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 it deems proper. A violation of 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"

For those who STILL missed it:

" subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper"

Got that? "As the licensing authority deems proper." Grasp the concept...... [roll]

 

[Bill Nance]

which means you're just as much up shits creek without a paddle if you get stopped by another PD while carrying on a restricted license.

Pretty much, yes.

Question though, does anyone know of a case where someone was cited/arrested for violating the restrictions on their LTC? I'm just curious.

 

[dagwag77]

Pretty much, yes.

Question though, does anyone know of a case where someone was cited/arrested for violating the restrictions on their LTC? I'm just curious.

I don't know if its cite-able/arrestable I don't think it is. I think it leads back to the suitability issue rather than an arrest on the spot. I have heard a good handful of stories of the issuing agency being contacted, and subsequently the LTC being revoked. There are also a few cases where I know the person was brought in and "re-explained" in no uncertain terms what the restrictions mean, but this is not the norm.

 

[Raoul Duke]

It's legal to carry to the range, being comfortable to do it is up to you but legally; yes you can.

This is more sh@tball legal advice.

The author could have said, "I interpret the discussion I had with my local PD to mean that it' legal in my town for me to do X. But when you make absolute statements like this that have no basis in written law you're screwing every other newbie who doesn't know better. Now, admittedly, anyone who takes this advice is dumber than dirt anyway, but seriously, it destroys the overall quality to this site when people just toss up any old opinion they have about the law. Do that with guns, talk about which round is better, I don't care. But, when you start tossing out bogus legal statements it's a different story. What you have hear is not sound legal opinion based in citable precedent, but rather one person, ticked that they didn't get a non-restricted LTC saying, F-it, I'm doing what I want." Now, you can interpret it however you want, but the fact is, when you introduce motive into the discussion, it's easy to see why this person has decided to interpret the law this way. Will you...unnamed newbie, decide to put your license in jeopardy beause of this clown's advice?

 

[jenlynn724]

This is more sh@tball legal advice.

. Now, admittedly, anyone who takes this advice is dumber than dirt anyway, ?

Now, calling someone dumber than dirt, because you don't agree with their interperetation of the law is ignorant in itself..
I think you have to take everyones advice on boards like this with a grain of salt.., Some people know what they are talking about, some think they do, and some just want others to think they do. I have decided to interperet the law the way it was explained to me, and that is on me. I would never try to convince someone else to do the same either though.. and for the record, I am way smarter than dirt..

 

[Raoul Duke]

Now, calling someone dumber than dirt, because you don't agree with their interperetation of the law is ignorant in itself..
I think you have to take everyones advice on boards like this with a grain of salt.., Some people know what they are talking about, some think they do, and some just want others to think they do. I have decided to interperet the law the way it was explained to me, and that is on me. I would never try to convince someone else to do the same either though.. and for the record, I am way smarter than dirt..

Did you take to op's advice or did you figure it out yourself? Sounds to me like you figured it out yourself in which case I obviously wasn't addressing you. IF, however, you based your opinion on the OP's statements, then, yes, you're an idiot. Frankly, if you based it on my opinion, it'd be the same way. My point is opinions are like * we all have them. What we don't all have is a solid legal footing for our arguments. My opinion is, if you don't, go get one before you make up your mind. If you take that personally, it's on you.

 

[jenlynn724]

Did you take to op's advice or did you figure it out yourself? Sounds to me like you figured it out yourself in which case I obviously wasn't addressing you. IF, however, you based your opinion on the OP's statements, then, yes, you're an idiot. Frankly, if you based it on my opinion, it'd be the same way. My point is opinions are like * we all have them. What we don't all have is a solid legal footing for our arguments. My opinion is, if you don't, go get one before you make up your mind. If you take that personally, it's on you.

No, I didn't take it personally, just stating my opinion. As far as my decision to carry or not, I made an informed decision all on my own..

 

[dagwag77]

No disrespect to either Raoul or Jen - if it was my ass on the line, as it is whenever YOU do something with a gun (carry, shoot, whatever, you are the only one responsible for what you do), I would check with a qualified ATTORNEY as to what best covers my bum. Again, no disrespect to Raoul since I agree with him here, but as far as I know he is not an attorney, and my freedom and my LTC are worth the time effort energy money to consult a lawyer. Scrivener (attorney) gave his "free advice" which I re-posted above. Seek him or another attorney (Cross-x, etc) out for more specific advice. Also, no disrepect to Police Officers or a Licensing official - they are not lawyers, and it is usually pretty clear they do not know the law usually half as well as well, they should. Also, they are not the ones arguing the case in court - a lawyer is. Which is why I would thank a cop for their advice, and still give my lawyer a call.

Jen - it sounds like you made an educated decision. Keyword = educated. thumbs up to your process. if you thought about it in the first place, it means you have substance to defend your decision (rather than saying its OK because some keyboard jockey on NES said its OK).

 

[bostonasphalt2]

No, I didn't take it personally, just stating my opinion. As far as my decision to carry or not, I made an informed decision all on my own..

your informed decision.....apparently wasnt informed. Sorry, but read above what Dagwag77 cited from Scrivener, who is a firearms attorney.

long story short: yes, your restrictions can stop you from legally carrying concealed. I dont know why you want to publicly admit to breaking the law.....

 

[Raoul Duke]

No, I didn't take it personally, just stating my opinion. As far as my decision to carry or not, I made an informed decision all on my own..

Spectacular.

You're smarter than the average bear (note, Yogi Bear reference, not a put down)

It's just that lately there has been a rash of Bull on this forum, unsubstantiated opinion passed as fact etc...It's undermining the overall quality of the board.

So much of what we discuss is just opinion. "Is the .45 better than a 9M? "Is a .223 sufficient for combat application." "Do pimp-daddy grips make you more popular with the ladies?...These are discussions in which opinion is everything and that's not only fine, it's fun. It's why we're hear sometimes.

But, when it comes to legal issues, particularly serious ones, (and they're almost all serious when it comes to firearms) it's really important not to treat the discussions with the same cavalier type of attitude. That doesn't mean we don't have discussions and debates. It just means that we need to be able to cite our assertions, or know where they are/can be found.

We need to push ourselves, or "compete," if you will, to give the most factually-based statements possible. Otherwise we diminish what we have here.

Go look at JDubois posts. He doesn't have some preternatural legal skill. (Sorry JD, your secret is out )He's simply adept at finding legal basis for his arguments. He knows where to look and he cites correctly. We don't all need to spend all day with our noses buried in legal tombs, (and he doesn't either) but a little more clarity about our statements, a little more fact, wouldn't hurt. Just my $1.49