Massachusetts class A license

Depends entirely on which town/city you live in and its CLEO. For many towns, including the one I lived in before I escaped to New Hampshire, getting a Class A LTC was almost "shall issue". In some others, it's practically impossible.

This thread over on the Northeast Shooters forum provides details on individual municipalities.
 
Rent an apartment for a month in the right town.
Click to expand...

Might work, I suppose, but the new CLEO will know your residence situation when you apply and is probably on to that scam. The larger problem is that when you eventually move back to your original town you're required by law to notify them about the move, and if the original CLEO was so adamantly opposed to issuing an LTC-A in the first place he'll (or she'll, I guess) simply contact the issuing CLEO in the town where you rented the apartment and have it revoked, which they can do at any time without cause.
 
Last edited:
It'd probably be pretty involved, but if someone actually did this, moved for a month to get a license, then let their lease expire to resume living in their previous residence, and the CLEO in their original jurisdiction did revoke the license for no other reason than they wouldn't have approved it:

This would imply:
  • his authority over another jurisdiction
  • a major hole in due process, as the SAME citizen is being treated differently on Main Street than Third Avenue
  • could disturb/reopen Kachalsky v Cacase by presenting the facts in a new light on P and I grounds (Or P OR I grounds, using discussion from it's drafting)- if
    By definition, “proper cause” must exceed the self-defense interest citizens ordinarily hold.
    Click to expand...
    here, but not 100 yards away given urban sprawl.
  • As the MA State constitution has enshrined a right to keep and bear arms independent of a militia clause, but for the common defense, this incorrectly implies the Chief Law Enforcement Officer has the authority to prevent a law-abiding citizen from bearing arms in the defense of himself and his fellow citizens in the traditions of hue and cry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it's the issuing CLEO (from the 1-month apartment town) who revokes the LTC that he issued, at the request of the original CLEO. He doesn't have to honor the request, of course, but I think we know how that would play out. That assumes you can get it in the first place based on being a renter in town for less than a month, which I think would be unlikely in most towns (the process itself takes a good bit longer than that).

As for the rest, I think the points in your second and fourth bullets have been raised many times with regard to the unequal application of the gun laws in Massachusetts, to no avail thus far. Not sure about Kachalsky v. Cacase.
 
I've lived in Massachusetts for some 38 years and have had a class A permit since the present licensing system came into existence. From my own experience and from talking with others, I think that in general class A permits are easier to get in rural areas, especially western Massachusetts where I live, and much harder if not impossible to get in and around Boston. Of course, once you obtain a license, you still have to deal with a very limited list of handguns you can legally purchase. In Massachusetts, specific models must appear on not one but two lists in order to be legally offered for sake: the Gun Control list and a separate Consumer Protection list. A number of manufacturers - Springfield Armory, for example - have simply refused to submit the number of test firearms Massachusetts requires for certification, citing the expense of doing so.
 
Are you a Mass resident? I have heard non-residents willing to jump through all the hoops have been able to score full carry licenses in the past. There is a note on handgunlaw that it may be more difficult now.
 
Are you a Mass resident? I have heard non-residents willing to jump through all the hoops have been able to score full carry licenses in the past. There is a note on handgunlaw that it may be more difficult now.
Click to expand...
In general, it's easier for out-of-staters to get a non-resident carry permit for Massachusetts than it is for most Massachusetts residents to get a Class A. The "gotcha" for the non-resident is the price -- it's $150, and I believe it's only good for ONE year. (My Florida non-resident permit is good for seven years.)
 
Are you a Mass resident? I have heard non-residents willing to jump through all the hoops have been able to score full carry licenses in the past. There is a note on handgunlaw that it may be more difficult now.
Click to expand...
In general, it's easier for out-of-staters to get a non-resident carry permit for Massachusetts than it is for most Massachusetts residents to get a Class A. The "gotcha" for the non-resident is the price -- it's $150, and I believe it's only good for ONE year. (My Florida non-resident permit is good for seven years.)
Click to expand...
It used to be easier, but not so much anymore. AFAIK non-resident licenses are still effectively "shall issue", but the application process was definitely changed a few years ago to require an in-person appointment (used to be able to do it all via mail). The price is the same as for resident licenses, $100, but it's only good for a year v.s. 6. It also appears that the time to issue can run up to 6 months which essentially means a perpetual application process.
 
Which screams P AND I violation. They're charging non-residents more for the same privileges and immunities. You could almost take the complaint filed and CTRL F "Find and Replace" "Harvest Oysters" with "Carry Concealed".
 
There are many things about MA "licensing" that scream constitutional violation, however nothing has changed. Given the way MA operates, I could easily see a complaint resulting in the reduction of residential license durations to 1 year. Most likely nothing will happen unless and until someone is willing and able to take the issue all the way to the SCOTUS.
 
Out here in the rural western part of the state it seems it matters mostly who is chief of your local PD. They can issue the permit then place 'restrictions' on it. These may allow only hunting and target shooting or hunting and 'sporting' ie- you can CC while hiking/camping. All of it is a clear violation of the 2nd. I have several friends that are more towards the middle of the state in a large city that are issued A licenses without restrictions. However the mindset out here is strange. We have farmers and workers and middle class people who are forced to abide by town/state laws that affected by the influx of 'artists' and second home owners who vote for antigun representation.
A relative who has owned guns since the '60s had obtained the non restriction A when all this licensing nonsense first went into effect, after moving about 8 or so miles to another town, that license was downgraded to hunting/sporting. So this individual could no longer CC a weapon. Because he moved to another town.
:confused:
Now time has passed, a new chief is in control, my relative now has no restrictions on his new permit. He didn't change, the law didn't change. The whim of an appointed officer did. This state is so anti rights its sickening.
The elected officials appoint chiefs, so therefore the antis win when they vote for those who are against legal gun usage/ownership.
I was told before that my restrictions would be lifted if the chief "didn't hear anything bad" over the next few years.
Its nuts. Either you can or can't have guns. Should be up to federal law. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not up for states to decide. I'm big on states rights, however the founding documents clearly define the Rights that the states have no control over. The Bill of Rights is set up to protect the people from the governments over reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top