-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Appealing restrictions in Boston and cost to do so?
- Thread starter Jimdev45
- Start date
Not for restrictions.
In 2014 they did add language regarding suitability denials, changing the standard to Risk to public. But until recently that has been ignored by the courts. Now there is one citeable case that reinforces the Risk to public standard. It remains to be seen if this will be followed by the courts.
All this is outside the OPs situation since he was not denied.
Contact a lawyer who specializes in firearms law, like Jason Guida or Neil Tassel. Your garden variety attorney won't have a clue and will give you bad advice. Guida and Tassel can tell you about your options, cost, and chances of success.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
Langer, Foley, MacNutt and a few others fall into the firearms competent category.
If your attorney cannot discuss how (s)he will attack the use of the Moyer precedent, and demand use of the Wakefield precedent, in your appeal shop elsewhere for representation.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
I am familiar with many restriction cases, and have read some of the denials decisions. They all cited the Moyer standard of "did the issuing authority feel s(he) had a reason that was not arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion to restrict". If the court concluded the IA felt (s)he had a reason, you lost.
With Wakefield, the standard should now be "public safety" but there will probably be judges who feel that an unimportant and unconnected person carrying is a threat to public safety in and of itself.
I was doing some research online and a law was passed in 2014, putting the burden of proving why they gave you restrictions on the police department, and if they can’t prove a viable reason for denial they must issue you unrestricted?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
Did your research include the Wakefield case?
We just had the first case in which the court ruled application of the old Moyer standard was an error of law.
The term is not "viable reason" but "danger to public safety". While the Wakefield case is encouraging, some judges may concur with chiefs in places like Brookline where the party line is "any unimportant person carrying is a threat to public safety".
LTC: The Class B License was eliminated; going forward there is only one License to Carry. (LTC). Chiefs now have to put denials in writing so that the burden of proof is on the police chief to defend the denial or restriction in District Court. Also, for the first time gun owners can appeal their LTC restrictions in District Court.
Both licenses: The term "prohibited person" is now being used for both licenses, instead of "unsuitable". This change in the language provides a much-needed change in framework around who is prohibited. Also the 90-day grace period - license renewal issue was fixed. Gun owners will now receive a receipt upon renewal, which makes the license valid until the new license is received.
Both licenses: The term "prohibited person" is now being used for both licenses, instead of "unsuitable". This change in the language provides a much-needed change in framework around who is prohibited. Also the 90-day grace period - license renewal issue was fixed. Gun owners will now receive a receipt upon renewal, which makes the license valid until the new license is received.
Hmm.
When a dozen knowledgeable, long-term members all chime in with precisely the same response, I’m not sure why you’d bother arguing about it.
You asked a good question and got the correct answer (not the “right” answer, of course). The 2014 law means only what the courts say it means. A good firearms attorney understands that.
When a dozen knowledgeable, long-term members all chime in with precisely the same response, I’m not sure why you’d bother arguing about it.
You asked a good question and got the correct answer (not the “right” answer, of course). The 2014 law means only what the courts say it means. A good firearms attorney understands that.
You're confusing a suitability denial with restrictions. The public safety thing and providing a reason is for suitability denials.
Restriction are a separate issue.
And Rob, with all due respect, I think you are also confusing these two.
Jimdev45, I see you're new here so I'll try to help. I'm fairly new myself and don't have all the bruises and scars of others who have lived with MA gun laws for a long time. If you're trolling it won't really matter but I'll try to help anyway.
First, if you're serious about pursuing this then contact one of the attorneys already mentioned. There's no point in arguing it until you have talked to someone who specializes in that area of law in MA, and the attorneys recommended are reportedly among the very best in MA.
Second, there are plenty of threads on this board about getting restrictions removed and why it often doesn't work in MA. The very short version: what the law says sometimes gets ignored or purposely misinterpreted by MA judges for a variety of reasons, and the judges defer to the decisions of the licensing officer. The law and the process sometimes look acceptable on paper but the real world doesn't work that way. If you can't see the threads, consider "going green" and sign up for a membership to get full access to the forums.
While you're signing up here, sign up to donate money to Comm2A.org and GOAL.org. Comm2A fights in court to improve firearm law in MA and GOAL lobbies with the legislature about gun laws.
If you have specific questions after that, come on back and ask them, but Rob Boudrie knows a *lot* about the reality of MA gun laws, you would do well to start with the premise that he is probably right and trying to help you, regardless of what Google tells you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
I agree that it could be argued that restrictions are a sort of partial denial if you applied for ALP, but I haven't heard of anyone actually trying this.
I did a quick reread of the law and there isn't anything suggesting an appeal can be done on restrictions. It's only mentioned in context of a denial and a revoked license.
And sorry if my answer was a little harsh, maybe I've been around the MA laws longer than I thought and it's making me curmudgeonly.
Unfortunately, I think you have been given the correct answers already:
- at this time, you are unlikely to get your restrictions removed
- talk to one of the attorneys listed who specialize in firearm law. Maybe there's something unique to your situation they could leverage to get you a better result than other people who have tried already.
- watch the Gould v. Morgan case. (Look at how long that one has been going on, and imagine the cost!). Donate to Comm2A to support their work to eliminate the unfair application of LTC restrictions, and all the other things they challenge.
The Gould v. Morgan case is currently making its way through the courts. It is a Comm2A case against Boston. You could bring your own case, but I think it would be best to let this one play its course. If you can't wait to get an unrestricted, become a firearms instructor. About 30 days after I sent my MSP paperwork into Boston, I had my unrestricted LTC in hand. No questions asked. No push back from the licensing LT.
Your only viable option is to contact a firearms attorney. That attorney can tell you the approximate cost, duration, and likelihood of success. Anything else will have a lower likelihood of success.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
Excellent chance of keeping it Boston.
Excellent chance of being restricted in Brookline unless you are important or connected.
Sparky123
NES Member
Sounds like excellent advice to me.
Sparky123
NES Member
From all that I have seen and heard, based on the standards that the city is using it would be very difficult if not impossible for the average person to get an unrestricted LTC. If you have lots of cash sitting around you could hire a lawyer. But if I was you I'd save my money and use it to buy guns and ammo. And make sure you find a green town to move to before you renew your LTC. Boston is NOT a gun friendly city.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,632
- Likes
- 2,422
Renewed an alp pistol permit (not in Boston) for a LTC A unrestricted. Cop said hunting and target. Hired one of the good lawyers. Spent $5000+ (in 1990s $). Lost... save your money.
Boston licensing officer told me on Monday, when I renewed, that once you have an unrestricted license, Boston will not impose restrictions
I had an unrestricted license from Norwood back in the 80s. When I applied for my Boston license last year, the PO who interviewed me recommended me for a ALP license. Of course I got the "Sport Target & Hunting" version.
Talked to my attorney & he said you can either take a lot of training classes & hope they "upgrade" you when you renew or become a NRA Instructor. I'm going to take the second option.
Ironically I have Maine, NH and Utah concealed carry permits so I can carry in almost 40 states... except the state I live in. That's Massachusetts for you!
Talked to my attorney & he said you can either take a lot of training classes & hope they "upgrade" you when you renew or become a NRA Instructor. I'm going to take the second option.
Ironically I have Maine, NH and Utah concealed carry permits so I can carry in almost 40 states... except the state I live in. That's Massachusetts for you!
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,271
- Likes
- 184
Similar threads
