Massachusetts Just Upped the Ante

[Knuckle Dragger]

Let me set the record straight and address a couple of incorrect or not quite true statements here. Just for the record, I live in Massachusetts, I'm a founding board member of Comm2A and am actively (and successfully) involved in a fair amount of 2A litigation.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/05/m...s-new-ground-in-gun-control/?advD=1248,250967

Now, should Deval Patrick sign this bill (which I wouldn't bet against), the mere PURCHASE of a firearm will require the approval of a government official.

States have banned certain types of firearms, but this is the first attempt at making a state "may issue" for the purchase of a firearm.

The ability to even possess a handgun in one's home has always required a discretionary license (LTC) issued by the local police chief (we have 351 of them). It's always been this way and this bill doesn't change that in any substantial way.

We also have another license (FID card) good for 'non-large capacity rifles and shotgun. These account for about 10% of all firearms license in the state and it was this license that went from shall issue to may issue. Is this bad? Yeah, sort of. But the ability to exercise the Second Amendment isn't done through the FID, it's the LTC and so that's were the focus has to be. Trying to make the FID is just insult to injury, it's not the core of the injury.

Un-freekin-believable.

Maryland: We Suck Less Than Massachusets.

That depends upon your point of view and priorities. In Maryland you buy a handgun and keep it at home without getting you're PDs permission. He, we have to get a discretionary license before buying a handgun to keep at home. BUT, that LTC is by default a license to CARRY. Fewer than 10% of the LTCs issued in the state are restricted such that one cannot carry a handgun in public. We make it harder than any other state to actually own a gun, but when you get that far, it's much easier to carry here than in ANY of the other may issue states.

Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans: "I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern..."

And everyone's health and well being, everywhere, is mine.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Boston, like Chicago, is run by thugs who dress well.

There's a HUGE difference between Chicago and Boston. Boston talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. I live in Boston and have NO trouble getting an LTC with Commissioner Evan's signature that actually allows me to carry. Here's the irony: Former Boston Mayor Tom Menino was in power for 20 years and was a found of MAIG. For all his hot air about guns, it was far easier to be a gun owner in Boston when he left office than it was when he went in.

I'll just add that Boston, unlike Chicago, is a very safe city with very limited gang activity. Chicago politicians and police blame everything on guns because they live in a shit hole and they're too incompetent to do anything about it.

It's the first time I can recall they have May Issue for long arms and shotguns, and that apparently this bill is at the local level, and not state.

The Boston police chief has basically said he won't authorize anyone within the city to own any type of gun, even shotguns.

No, this is a state-wide bill, and that's NOT what the Boston Police Commissioner said. I don't think the BPD's licensing practices will change significantly after this.

Now here's the rest of the story:
This is actually a huge win. The bill that was originally introduced in May would have screwed us royally. We pushed back so hard that they had to take out or neuter just about everything they wanted to shove down our throats. The political reality is that this bill, in some form, had to go through because it was the Speaker's bill. If a speaker can't get his own bill through then he probably can't hold on to his job either. In order to make that happen and save face they basically gave it all back.

The net is that this was a huge wake up call to our political establishment and they're still in shock. They grossly underestimated how much things have changed and took for granted that gun owners were going to continue being political whipping boys. They're unlikely to make this mistake again anytime soon. The good news is that they can now claim that they 'did something' in response to Newtown. It's crossed off the list, time to move along.

They were caught off-guard and do not want to

 

[Brooklyn]

Good on you...

Question does the license to buy on a may issue basis defy Heller. If so does linking the purchase and carry get us outside the home.. . Under Heller.

Has anyone been denied without cause.... if so has it been challenged..

Fine work...

 

[press1280]

Good on you...

Question does the license to buy on a may issue basis defy Heller. If so does linking the purchase and carry get us outside the home.. . Under Heller.

Has anyone been denied without cause.... if so has it been challenged..

Fine work...

If you're denied for anything resembling "need" then yes it defies Heller. And yes, I also think if a state comes up with may-issue for possession that it may also knock down may-issue for carry permits.
Don't know of anyone denied without cause, although some folks are probably turned down for really flimsy things (like a street fight from the late 60's for example).

 

[Mr H]

Now here's the rest of the story:
This is actually a huge win. The bill that was originally introduced in May would have screwed us royally. We pushed back so hard that they had to take out or neuter just about everything they wanted to shove down our throats. The political reality is that this bill, in some form, had to go through because it was the Speaker's bill. If a speaker can't get his own bill through then he probably can't hold on to his job either. In order to make that happen and save face they basically gave it all back.

We experienced similar realities and results here with FSA13, though the success MSI feels we had in diluting the original bill gets pooh-poohed (if not downright derided and vilified) here.

We have to take our victories where we can get them some times, and keep working on the rest.

We have similar fights, MA and MD (and CT too)... Hopefully we can all work to right all the ships together.

 

[kcbrown]

But who's fault is that? It's ours. Americans. Patriots. Gun Owners. We've been so soft, asleep in our comfort, and too content with what we have to do what needs to be done when these domestic enemies play games with our lives. It's our fault that they have nothing to lose. If they knew that doing these things would literally put their lives at risk, they wouldn't even try.

No, they would continue to try, but after passing draconian laws under the guise of "national security" and "continuity of government" and all that. If you think laws are getting bad now, imagine how bad they would be if the lawmakers felt their very lives were threatened by certain groups of citizens.

Tyrants do not give up in the face of threats to their lives. They only give up when sufficient numbers of those they command stop obeying their orders. They give up only when they lose their necessary support structure.

This is why it generally takes a military victory to depose a tyrant.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

To much fanfare our Governor signed this into law yesterday. They are very pleased with themselves, but we know the truth: They tried to screw us and we came out on top.

If anyone's interested Comm2A published an analysis of the bill.

 

[Vile Shadow]

To much fanfare our Governor signed this into law yesterday. They are very pleased with themselves, but we know the truth: They tried to screw us and we came out on top.

If anyone's interested Comm2A published an analysis of the bill.

I know you're in the same boat up there as we are, and have to take your victories where you can get 'em. But a polished turd is still a turd, I'm afraid.

 

[Brooklyn]

I know you're in the same boat up there as we are, and have to take your victories where you can get 'em. But a polished turd is still a turd, I'm afraid.

Not based on what i am reading -- we just got substantive due process for gun rights codified in one of the national liberal bastions of gun hate .

In order to deny the issuance or renewal of an FID for any non-statutory reason, the
licensing authority must file a petition in district court requesting that the applicant be
denied the license. As part of this petition the licensing authority is required to provide
written notice to the applicant and include the specific evidence in their petition. Once
a petition is filed, the court must hold a hearing within 90 days to determine if the
applicant is ‘unsuitable’ to be licensed. The court has another 90 days to enter a
judgment that the applicant is unsuitable according to the law. If the court fails to enter
a judgment within this timeframe it is required to enter a judgment that the applicant is
suitable to be licensed.
In the event that a licensing authority seeks to suspend or revoke a valid FID based
upon suitability, they must again file a petition in district court which has 15 days to
determine if the evidence presented by the licensing authority is sufficient to warrant
suspension or revocation of the FID. The filing of the petition serves as a suspension
or revocation of the FID.
If the court determines that the evidence presented by the licensing authority is not
sufficient to justify the suspension or revocation of the FID, the licensing authority
cannot file another petition to suspend or revoke the individual’s FID for 75 days.
If the court determines that the evidence presented by the licensing authority

This this is loosing bring on more of it .


This will be a big help in some of saf's work going forward.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Massachusetts is no longer worthy of having an official state hero like Samuel Whittemore!

 

[jcbvh]

If the people of Mass allow this without extreme protest then they deserve what they get.

 

[Mr H]

If the people of Mass allow this without extreme protest then they deserve what they get.

Bud, we're still having issues getting Marylanders pissed off.

I wish those in MA luck.

 

[El Patron Grande]

El Patron Grande says:

I had the opportunity to take myself and three of the guys I supervise to Massholeland to meet with a team that we hired for some technical assistance.

I had.

I cancelled our trip and told them that they can come here to meet with us....at their dime.

No way I'm ever setting foot in that state - which I loathe.

El Patron Grande does not do business with Massholeland anymore.

 

[win296]

Not based on what i am reading -- we just got substantive due process for gun rights codified in one of the national liberal bastions of gun hate .

Not to wear a tinfoil hat, but aren't you assuming that the police and the courts will play by the rules. We have seen otherwise lately.

 

[foxtrapper]

I'm hoping some day soon in MA that the coyotes will take over the posh white suburbs like a street gang, and the beavers will flood everything else. The Massholes will learn that trapping bans are stupid and that self defense also applies to defending yourself and your dog against a pack of 50 pound coyotes.

 

[foxtrapper]

El Patron Grande says:

I had the opportunity to take myself and three of the guys I supervise to Massholeland to meet with a team that we hired for some technical assistance.

I had.

I cancelled our trip and told them that they can come here to meet with us....at their dime.

No way I'm ever setting foot in that state - which I loathe.

El Patron Grande does not do business with Massholeland anymore.

Just as well, you would have to wear waders due to the combo of BS and beaver flooding, and bring batons and pepper spray for the coyotes.

 

[axshon]

Not to wear a tinfoil hat, but aren't you assuming that the police and the courts will play by the rules. We have seen otherwise lately.

That was my first thought as well. INAL but they codified that there must be evidence, not what constitutes evidence. Please correct me if I missed that. So Mr. Elected LEO Honcho and Mr. Tweed Jacket Judge play for the antis and decide that the fact that a person lives in a certain neighborhood is evidence for denial or the fact that there are 10x more applications is evidence of an anti-government plot. We all know that those Tea Partiers are a bunch of terrorists (oh, the irony).

It looks like they added bureaucracy and that always plays to the bureaucrats strong suit. Take your wins where you can get them, I understand that. This looks like a win if there are an overwhelming number of requests such that citizens can file some kind of class action or get the news' attention. If there are only a few hundred of these cases a year then it seems pretty easy for a bunch of no-name paper-pushers to deny on a whim or just sit on the applications for years giving defacto 2a prohibition. Only if someone can afford a lawyer can they attempt to get movement.

Also, are the petitions and filings public record, available to the original purchaser or only to officials? That's a 2 edged sword too.

Damn, I've become a cynical old fart...

 

[Brooklyn]

Not to wear a tinfoil hat, but aren't you assuming that the police and the courts will play by the rules. We have seen otherwise lately.

No I am assuming that it will create so many causes of action if they don't that will need to shut it down by taking a damn case.


This is chess we don't win in one move. Consider

1. MA links ownership in the home and carry.
2. Heller and related are binding in the home so due process applies to the lic
3. Ma has conceded that Due process applies to the lic. making it hard for other states to contest, and there is a lot of president on this that the courts risk unraveling ( that it SCOTUS)
4. From 1 above Due process is now applying to carry as well.

5. MA has conceded that the right is not home bound, and also that its worthy of due process.


Fact is MA gun owners have more statutory p[protection on MA law than they do under federal law wrt to due process for simple;e ownership, as a federally prohibited person does not currently have access to the courts for redress, until they go trough the administrative steps, which are denied for lack for funding as the court ducked the issue.

Think about that substantive due process for 2a is a very big deal..

 

[Brooklyn]

That was my first thought as well. INAL but they codified that there must be evidence, not what constitutes evidence. Please correct me if I missed that. So Mr. Elected LEO Honcho and Mr. Tweed Jacket Judge play for the antis and decide that the fact that a person lives in a certain neighborhood is evidence for denial or the fact that there are 10x more applications is evidence of an anti-government plot. We all know that those Tea Partiers are a bunch of terrorists (oh, the irony).

It looks like they added bureaucracy and that always plays to the bureaucrats strong suit. Take your wins where you can get them, I understand that. This looks like a win if there are an overwhelming number of requests such that citizens can file some kind of class action or get the news' attention. If there are only a few hundred of these cases a year then it seems pretty easy for a bunch of no-name paper-pushers to deny on a whim or just sit on the applications for years giving defacto 2a prohibition. Only if someone can afford a lawyer can they attempt to get movement.

Also, are the petitions and filings public record, available to the original purchaser or only to officials? That's a 2 edged sword too.

Damn, I've become a cynical old fart...

See below. Once in court rules of evidence tend to apply. If they paly to many games they risk an an as applied challenge.. only by keeping it under the executive can tey hope to play games with out risking the entire law.

Moreover as I have noted before, the state has the burden of proof -- well guess what the state has just conceded that it has the burden of proof..-- they have to go to court before any action is taken.

Of course we need to defend, but defense is a far lower burden and if we continue to organize ans don't give up we can pool our resources and get precedent setting decisions . This is how we move the ball.

Right now in most jurisdictions that do may issue you only get to court on appeal after injury is done.

Shall issue has become a rebut-able presumption of shall issue. WE won far more than we lost.. consider also that having a rebutabble presumption of shall issue completely eviscerates the anti hysteria about " free for all" and no right is unlimited-- here the 2a is being treated with the same due process respect as other rights not more not less ( well perhaps a bit less-- but we are now moving in the right direction ).


Now to the court this is going to look very good. Its going to look like the middle ground that they could force on the rest of the country politically as a bar to any more interference with 2a.

Politically geting this from 'MASShole' the home of Harvard law makes it much more palatable;e than say say Texas as the model. Now I love Texas, but I want to win.

I want the 2a to be protected and respected by the courts with substantive due process and SS like any other right. THIS IS A WIN by that measure.


As far as public records go .. court record can be sealed by the court if warranted. But the fact is he may want the abuses and attempted abuses public by default. Right now we have star chamber proceedings for most things like this .

Hats off to our friends in MA. Hope to see some of you at GRPC.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I know you're in the same boat up there as we are, and have to take your victories where you can get 'em. But a polished turd is still a turd, I'm afraid.

Good observation to a point. The bill was indeed a well polished turd. But you should have seen the turd they started with. The big story and victory here is that they took for granted that they could run right over us and the Speaker staked his position on it. If it were not for the Speaker's need to save face we would have stopped the bill in in its tracks. In the end he had to give in and give up. They tried to screw us and they lost.

Massachusetts is no longer worthy of having an official state hero like Samuel Whittemore!

Thanks for the info. Whttemore is my new hero and as I get older I'm sure he'll mean even that much more to me. Given our history, it's really hard to understand why Massachusetts is not the most staunchly pro-2A state in the union.

If the people of Mass allow this without extreme protest then they deserve what they get.

There was extreme protest. The members of the legislature were utterly unprepared for the onslaught they received. In the end the only reason anything got through was because the Speaker staked his reputation (and speaker-ship) on it. At that point it didn't matter what got through as long as his ass is saved.

Not to wear a tinfoil hat, but aren't you assuming that the police and the courts will play by the rules. We have seen otherwise lately.

And this will be the big problem. Our district courts and even our SJC have a habit of making it up as they go along. Our legal challenges are well crafted to bring the right issues to the right venues and expose the shortcomings in the state's judicial system.

No I am assuming that it will create so many causes of action if they don't that will need to shut it down by taking a damn case.


This is chess we don't win in one move. Consider

1. MA links ownership in the home and carry.
2. Heller and related are binding in the home so due process applies to the lic
3. Ma has conceded that Due process applies to the lic. making it hard for other states to contest, and there is a lot of president on this that the courts risk unraveling ( that it SCOTUS)
4. From 1 above Due process is now applying to carry as well.

5. MA has conceded that the right is not home bound, and also that its worthy of due process.


Fact is MA gun owners have more statutory p[protection on MA law than they do under federal law wrt to due process for simple;e ownership, as a federally prohibited person does not currently have access to the courts for redress, until they go trough the administrative steps, which are denied for lack for funding as the court ducked the issue.

Think about that substantive due process for 2a is a very big deal..

You've got a really good start to understanding what we face up here. With the revised statutes we pick up some important procedural gains, however, our due process protections relative to the license are still lacking.

In challenging a denial the burden is on the applicant to prove that the licensing authority acted in an arbitrary or capacious manner when they denied a license. A court must uphold a denial unless they determine that there were no reasonable grounds for denying someone a license. The court cannot substitute its own judgement as to someone's suitability for the judgement of the police chief. There is no de novo review of the application and what we have is little more than an administrative hearing held in a court.

So, we still have a very long way to go. But we did pick up some important procedural gains.

 

[Brooklyn]

Good observation to a point. The bill was indeed a well polished turd. But you should have seen the turd they started with. The big story and victory here is that they took for granted that they could run right over us and the Speaker staked his position on it. If it were not for the Speaker's need to save face we would have stopped the bill in in its tracks. In the end he had to give in and give up. They tried to screw us and they lost.

Thanks for the info. Whttemore is my new hero and as I get older I'm sure he'll mean even that much more to me. Given our history, it's really hard to understand why Massachusetts is not the most staunchly pro-2A state in the union.

There was extreme protest. The members of the legislature were utterly unprepared for the onslaught they received. In the end the only reason anything got through was because the Speaker staked his reputation (and speaker-ship) on it. At that point it didn't matter what got through as long as his ass is saved.

And this will be the big problem. Our district courts and even our SJC have a habit of making it up as they go along. Our legal challenges are well crafted to bring the right issues to the right venues and expose the shortcomings in the state's judicial system.

You've got a really good start to understanding what we face up here. With the revised statutes we pick up some important procedural gains, however, our due process protections relative to the license are still lacking.

In challenging a denial the burden is on the applicant to prove that the licensing authority acted in an arbitrary or capacious manner when they denied a license. A court must uphold a denial unless they determine that there were no reasonable grounds for denying someone a license. The court cannot substitute its own judgement as to someone's suitability for the judgement of the police chief. There is no de novo review of the application and what we have is little more than an administrative hearing held in a court.

So, we still have a very long way to go. But we did pick up some important procedural gains.

Lots of torys in MA then and now.


I got the wrong idea from your summary .. still it may lead to good litigation.

Is this a full Court or an administrative law court ? is the state sworn when giving evidence ? Right to counsel ? If its just admin law your right its just a fancy star chamber .. but if not even if its a hearing before a real court its a big deal.