Good. That's precisely the sort of overreach that I believe will work in our favor in the end . . . restricting a home-bound right to a primarily outdoor activity.
They kind of have to back off from that position. In Wesson v. Fowler the plaintiffs argued that the core right includes maintaining proficiency, an argument that the court accepted. In the hearing the judge observed that the right to keep a firearm in the home didn't make much sense if you didn't also have the right to take it somewhere and shoot it.
That's correct. But not only that, both defendant towns appear to have changed their licensing policies and now issue unrestricted licenses as a default.
Boston is interesting and is far from the worst licensing authority in Massachusetts. They tend to be more by the book (although it's their book) and consistent. They issue restricted licences (required to even possess a firearm) to almost all qualified applicants, so they don't play that game anymore. Issuing of unrestricted licenses (necessary in order to carry) is still based upon perceived need.
