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.
What we need here is someone to take up a case questioning the entire premise of licensing, not just the bits and pieces surrounding the how and why of it.
The city basically said that if the plaintiff reapplied she'd get at least a restricted license. And that would allow her to open carry a firearm - in a locked case, unloaded. This was repeated three times.
So I guess they want to know about everyone that ends up in the city and carries while here for work or business all day and night too?
I will bet MONEY that there are more people that end up in the city, all day long, that legally carry, than there are of people that live and have a LTC-A permit in this crap hole.
Must drive them all nuts that they can't do anything about it eh?
I hope the court won't try to legislate from the bench....not that we've ever seen that here.
I hope the court won't try to legislate from the bench....not that we've ever seen that here.
During WWII, we didn't just head straight for Tokyo.
In the interest of historical accuracy, we kind of did.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/misc-42/dooltl.htm
I do agree that their strategy seems like a good one.
There was a story about someone stopped in Boston ccw'g and when he showed his LTC to a Boston PO, the guy was told that it "was not valid here, since it wasn't issued by Boston"!!
Oral arguments lasted a little less than 1.5 hours. The judge was well briefed, very attentive, and asked good questions. ....
..
I'm guessing we won't have to wait too long for a decision in this case.
I've been following this as much as I possibly can, but is there any new news? This case is very pertinent to myself.
I was under the impression that this might change things regarding Boston LTC-As and how they (don't) issue them. Former police or not, wouldn't the same rules apply to all citizens?
Opinion released today. The judge denied Hightower's MSJ and granted the city and state's MSJs. In other words, we lost. I'm sure the appeal to the 1st circuit will be filed shortly.
Specifically, as of Febraury 22, 2011, there were 3,798 active Class A licenses in
Boston, of which 2,239 (or 59%) were unrestricted, 1,257 (or just over 33%) were restricted to
sporting activities, 291 (or just under 8%) were restricted for employment purposes, 10 (or less
than 1%) were restricted to home protection, and 1 (much less than 1%) was restricted for film
production or theater use. Second Affidavit of Jason Guida, Director of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau, D. 40-15 at ¶ 8.
Specifically, from 2008 through 2010, 92,765 applications for licenses to approve were
submitted, and 90,865 applications were granted. First Guida Aff., D. 35-6 at ¶ 7. Of the 1,900
applications that were denied, 969 were denied on the ground that the applicant was statutorily
disqualified to hold a license, and 931 were denied on the ground that the applicant was deemed
unsuitable by the licensing authority. Id.
It appears that revocation is uncommon. For example, in calendar year 2007, the year
before Hightower’s license was revoked, the Boston Police Department revoked 50 licenses.
Second Guida Aff., D. 40-15 at ¶ 6. Assuming for the moment that the number of licenses in
Boston was similar in both 2007 and 2011, and given that in 2011 there were 3,798 active Class
A licenses (and that the record does not reflect the number of active Class B licenses), it appears
that roughly 1% of the active licenses in Boston are revoked annually. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8.
Interesting note from the opinion;
Yeah, the unrestricted are cops...
There is another one where they say 2% of all licenses are denied. Clearly the soft denials on restrictions or apps that are never processed are never counted.