New Hampshire Resident With Carry Permit Wins Court Case In Massachusetts Over Carry Across State Lines

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,624
    Bel Air
    Another issue which could push the courts in that direction is these anti states are making it more and more difficult to get a permit, even with the need requirement gone.
    Many charge more for out of state residents (some like CA and NY don’t even issue), and according to Handgunlaw for MA a non resident has to apply in person in Chelsea, which is near Boston. A VT resident would have to drive clear across the state to get the permit.
    They can’t have it both ways where they require the permit yet make it as difficult as possible. Scotus may just say screw it at some point and tell these states you had your chance but chose to be obstructionists so your permit schemes are out the window.
    You mean like MD increasing the cost and putting self-defense out of reach for low-income citizens who need it most?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,831
    WV
    You mean like MD increasing the cost and putting self-defense out of reach for low-income citizens who need it most?
    Exactly, not just through the permit fee, but now through training, which IIRC wasn’t even required pre-2013.
    The only thing MD has going is the non-residents pay the same as residents.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,624
    Bel Air
    Exactly, not just through the permit fee, but now through training, which IIRC wasn’t even required pre-2013.
    The only thing MD has going is the non-residents pay the same as residents.
    One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    21,982
    One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.
    How else will they keep the blacks and other undesirable minorities unarmed since the Supreme Court doesn't like all those post reconstruction disarmament laws the D's past to do the same thing. The Supreme Court says they can't even use them as analogs although you wouldn't know that from reading the anti gun Amicus briefs in the Rahimi case.

    Link to briefs:

    Edit:
    They are now up to 40 briefs and even the ones that claim to favor neither party are anti gun and full of references to "Jim Crow Laws".

    See our favorite long winded YouTube Lawyer:

     
    Last edited:

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,662
    One of our “friends” should introduce a bill where MD must subsidize the training and waive the fee if your income is below a certain amount. Force the Ds to show that they discriminate against low-income citizens.
    I prefer a ruling defining what fees are considered abusive. I have no problem paying a reasonable fee to reemburse the state for the costs to process my application. I have real problems with states that declare in public that they intend to turn the fees collected over to gun control lobbying groups. There is no way the actual cost in MD is anywhere near what they are charging. That makes it a tax on a constitutional right. The PA fee is much less.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,919
    Fulton, MD
    I prefer a ruling defining what fees are considered abusive. I have no problem paying a reasonable fee to reemburse the state for the costs to process my application. I have real problems with states that declare in public that they intend to turn the fees collected over to gun control lobbying groups. There is no way the actual cost in MD is anywhere near what they are charging. That makes it a tax on a constitutional right. The PA fee is much less.
    No fee on 1A rights, no fee on asserting 5A rights, so why acceptable fee on 2A?

    Any fee on carry permit is abusive.

    The solution is no permits needed for carry.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,624
    Bel Air
    I prefer a ruling defining what fees are considered abusive. I have no problem paying a reasonable fee to reemburse the state for the costs to process my application. I have real problems with states that declare in public that they intend to turn the fees collected over to gun control lobbying groups. There is no way the actual cost in MD is anywhere near what they are charging. That makes it a tax on a constitutional right. The PA fee is much less.
    I'm not even in favor of permits, there should be no fee or permit needed to exercise a fundamental right. Want training to be mandatory? Make it a class in high school. In the mean time, we should take every opportunity to make them look like the hypocrites they are.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,054
    Montgomery County
    Federal courts should never be in the business of settings specific dollar amounts on things like fees - they should be ruling whether or not such fees are even constitutional, and if they are (never mind 2A for the moment), what the basis for such a fee should be. When a court effectively legislates into existence an administrative detail like a specific dollar amount, we are way outside the bounds of the separation of powers the constitution envisions.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,452
    What do the people in Con Carry states have to do to get their piece of that pie?

    Unless they live in Vermont , their state offers a Permit .

    Added - Looked snarkier actually posted , than in my mind .

    Yes , Fundimental Rights .
    Yes , Con Carry * ought to be * so
    No , paying for Fundimental Rights sucks .

    Just being realistic , that Full Faith & Credit is closer to happening than pure Con Carry .
     
    Last edited:

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,110
    Messages
    7,223,460
    Members
    33,160
    Latest member
    FullBackBob

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom