Chapter 135 GOAL Court Action Update - 10/29/2024
For several months GOAL has been coordinating with groups around the country concerning the new law. We are trying act as a sort of air traffic control for any actions brought. This is to make sure efforts are not duplicated and resources are being directed effectively. This will likely take years in court before anything is settled. Here is what GOAL has coordinated so far.
First Filing: Initial GOAL case, Theodore et al v. Campbell, involved the new training requirements and the licensing process. These two issues were chosen first because it could have potentially closed off the Second Amendment to those not yet licensed in Massachusetts. Additionally, license renewals are a serious problem as the local licensing authorities are not being given any guidance and some are refusing to issue licenses citing the new law. Keep in mind that the mandatory training for law enforcement on Chapter 135 has been suspended for 18 months
Almost as soon as GOAL filed the court action, the State issued a “guidance letter” suspending those pieces of Chapter 135. Our position is that this has no effect on our lawsuit.
Guidance letters can be rescinded at any time leaving citizens at risk. Citizens are still having to wait ridiculous amount of time to get an appointment to submit their application. We are told New Bedford appointments are now a year out. The licensing “regime” itself is a hot mess and needs to be challenged.
Theodore et al v. Campbell - Chapter 135 Training and Licensing Mandates
The case has been filed (August 1, 2024) - Court filing document.
Next GOAL filing:
The next case we plan to file has to do with the new long gun roster and testing requirements. It will also involve other retailer mandates. As soon as it became known that GOAL was drafting this next court action, the State issued another guidance letter suspending the long gun roster piece of Chapter 135. There seems to be a pattern here. We are moving forward with this action regardless of any “guidance”.
Other actions:
The National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America and GOAL have joined together to pursue action against the new “Assault Style Firearms” laws, the prohibition on FID Card holders of any age possessing any semi-automatic and we are adding in the carry ban on 18 – 20 year olds. We hope to see this filed very soon.
GOAL has also worked to set up a group to tackle the massive non-resident issues in Chapter 135. We will not be taking this on directly as we are focusing our resources on the resident 2A community for the time being. When this effort comes together, we will let folks know.
Outside Action:
There is another retailer action brought by Mass Armament on a host of issues that will impede lawful commerce and likely put many retailers out of business. GOAL is not directly involved in this case, but we are in contact with them.
State Level Challenges:
Donnell Case - Non-resident Licensing
Lowell District Court
GOAL filed an “Amicus Brief” in the Donnell case that originated at the state district court level. It concerns seven different non-resident defendants that were charged with possession of a firearm without a Temporary License to Carry (Non-Resident). The district court, citing Bruen, declared the felony charge to be unconstitutional. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took the case directly. Oral arguments were heard on October 9, 2024 and we are awaiting a decision
Belchertown - Suitability
Eastern Hampshire District Court (Doran v. Pacunas / docket 2498CV84)
In February of 2024, the Belchertown, MA firearm licensing authority denied resident Connor Doran a firearms license due to being determined “unsuitable”. That denial was appealed with the help of Attorney Dan Hagan of Springfield. In district court, Judge Bruce S. Melikian, ruled against Belchertown stating that the denial was “overly broad, vague and therefore arbitrary and capricious.”
After the judge ruled, the town then hired a Boston law firm. That firm filed a motion, on behalf of Belchertown, for a hearing to present further evidence. (Court's Decision) That motion was denied. As a result, the town is bringing the case to the appellate court. GOAL has stepped in to help fund the appeal on this very important, and potentially historic case.
Westbrook Case - Suitability
Westbrook v. Pratt - Holyoke District Court Docket Number: 2317CV0154
This is another suitability case where the district court ruled the denial of a license was unconstitutional citing the Supreme Court of the United States. Holyoke is appealing the ruling, and GOAL is supporting the district court’s ruling for the appeal.
Chapter 135 Court Action Update
www.goal.org
