Equal Protection Clause & Massachusetts Firearms Permits

[Mr Weebles]

Even though I recently moved out of Massachusetts, this has been bothering me for some time now:

When I applied for my firearms permit in Salem, MA I was told by the LT processing the paperwork that they only issue Class A permits to business owners. In fact, I explained several times that I wanted an "A" permit and he said "forget it" and chose "B" on the computer screen when entering my info.

I have nothing on my record except one old traffic violation from about 10 years ago (switched plates on a new car I bought and hadn't done the required paperwork in time).

Now here's my issue with this: If my twin existed in the next town over, had the same record and was in all respects a law-abiding citizen like I am (not to mention brilliant and handsome), he would be issued a Class A permit.

Doesn't this fly in the face of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Also, aren't States precluded from enacting legislation that violates Federal Law? I don't understand how two "equal" citizens are treated differently due only to their geographic location.

Anyone have any insight on this?

 

[JellyFish]

They could not care less. MA is a "may issue" state so they can do what they want and they rely on the fact that either you won't take them to court or, if you do, their leftist judges will rule against you thus you will lose.

The Constitution? That pesky old anachronism? Why would they ever care about that?

 

[Mr Weebles]

They could not care less. MA is a "may issue" state

My point is not whether Mass is a "may issue" state, it's that the entire "may issue" process treats its citizens unequally.

 

[LoginName]

Probably not an equal protection abridgment of your (our), RKBA because the SCOTUS has never ruled that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights has).

 

[Len-2A Training]

And the legistraitors hear these tales of woe every two years at hearings, then go back to their offices and support the chiefs (and MCOPA) 100% in doing whatever they want to . . . to make sure that they have MCOPA support for their re-election bid.

Not kidding, this is really why we are stuck with the current system of abuses.

 

[adweisbe]

So why aren't we running a smear campaign on MCOPA? It's not like they haven't handed us what to smear with fair and square. Set up a 5 year program and funding to shift public opinion, picketing, make some noise about "the man" to leverage the "free press" etc. Doesn't have to have anything to do with guns. Can we marginalize them?

 

[Mr Weebles]

So why aren't we running a smear campaign on MCOPA? It's not like they haven't handed us what to smear with fair and square. Set up a 5 year program and funding to shift public opinion, picketing, make some noise about "the man" to leverage the "free press" etc. Doesn't have to have anything to do with guns. Can we marginalize them?

I don't think any gun rights organization would want to be seen running a smear campaign against MCOPA. That would be terrible PR.

 

[adweisbe]

I don't think any gun rights organization would want to be seen running a smear campaign against MCOPA. That would be terrible PR.

It doesn't have to be a gun rights organization. Smear campaigns are never run by the candidate, it's all done indirectly *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*. Sure you can't hide who it is in the end, but the majority don't pay enough attention to notice where the influence is coming from. Unless it's Haliburton In that case everything is done by them. "Thank you for smoking" was a fun movie. It's a pipe dream anyways as there is no money for it, leveraging the free press is still an option, but we need some form of corruption that is not gun related to start the process.

 

[drgrant]

Probably not an equal protection abridgment of your (our), RKBA because the SCOTUS has never ruled that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment (like most of the Bill of Rights has).

+1. All bs "controversy" about the "meaning" of the 2nd aside, without
incorporation, the 2nd amendment cannot be effective against forcing
states to do certain things WRT firearms.

(EDIT: FWIW, incorporation is the dirty secret illudium pew-36 explosive
space modulator when it comes to the gun rights thing. Theres a reason
that "both sides" don't want to touch it with a 49.5 foot pole, although I think
the NRAs reason for avoiding the issue is pretty weak... )

Even if it WAS the case that they were violating the constitution, whens
the last time you saw a case where the government was dragged into
court for violating someones rights? It doesn't seem to happen all that
often. Most cases don't make it to the supremes, or get stalemated, or
the accused gets sent to jail, or whatever.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

So why aren't we running a smear campaign on MCOPA? It's not like they haven't handed us what to smear with fair and square. Set up a 5 year program and funding to shift public opinion, picketing, make some noise about "the man" to leverage the "free press" etc. Doesn't have to have anything to do with guns. Can we marginalize them?

While that sounds great in principle, I doubt it would accomplish
much here. We simply can't get enough heat on the corrupt entities in
MA to disturb them very much. Look at the Turnpike Authority, for instance,
s well as all the unions under it- time and time again, the media has painted them
as being a hack house full of corruption. Howie Carr and others have been
relentless about the authority for like the past decade or even longer. Voter
apathy is the problem here. It's hard to make people care about an issue that
they likely have little to no vested interest in, or even anyone close to them
has interest in.

If a smear was to work, you'd have to make it have a very wide scope and have
a few million in the bank to fund some tv ads and the like, run it out of a shell
company or something. If we had enough people and cash MCOPA could be smeared
the same way the Scientologists smear their enemies... lol.


-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Voter
apathy is the problem here. It's hard to make people care about an issue that
they likely have little to no vested interest in, or even anyone close to them
has interest in.

A majority of voters in MA have an interest in keeping the pike tolls as high as possible, since they personally use toll free roads. It's all part of a comprehensive strategy - implement as many separate taxes on minority groups as you can and you will always have 50%+1 in favor of each and every one of these taxes.

Don't smoke - fine, favor another couple of bucks per pack tax. Don't drink much? An alcohol tax sounds just fine if it will keep the income tax rate in check. Sports fees in schools? A great idea as far as all the single people and those whose kids have graduated are concerned. $100 firearms licenses? Ditto.

 

[News Shooter]

I'm not a lawyer

But the 14th Amendment was designed for and aimed at racial discrimination following the Civil War. Over the years it has been used to level the playing field in the justice and electoral system for minorities.
It prohibits the states from enacting or enforcing any laws that treat one race of person differently from another.
Taken strictly, it probably couldn't be applied to MA anyway as the state gun laws are applied equally across the board. The decision between an A or a B is strictly at the local level and not race-based.

Having said that, I have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[Scrivener]

But the 14th Amendment was designed for and aimed at racial discrimination following the Civil War. Over the years it has been used to level the playing field in the justice and electoral system for minorities.
It prohibits the states from enacting or enforcing any laws that treat one race of person differently from another.
Taken strictly, it probably couldn't be applied to MA anyway as the state gun laws are applied equally across the board. The decision between an A or a B is strictly at the local level and not race-based.

Having said that, I have no idea what I'm talking about

Note that the "protected classes" now include gender and religion as well as race. Sexual orientation and age will also get heightened scrutiny.

This means a COP who flatly refuses to license women, blacks, Muslims, gays or the elderly - and is STUPID enough to say that - might provide a basis for a Due Process challenge. Most have been schooled in how to deny for "unsuitability" and the district courts will usually rubber-stamp that denial.

 

[calsdad]

Note that the "protected classes" now include gender and religion as well as race. Sexual orientation and age will also get heightened scrutiny.

This means a COP who flatly refuses to license women, blacks, Muslims, gays or the elderly - and is STUPID enough to say that - might provide a basis for a Due Process challenge. Most have been schooled in how to deny for "unsuitability" and the district courts will usually rubber-stamp that denial.

Sounds like what we need is for some members of the Pink Pistols to start applying for Class A LTC's in the towns that won't issue them. Also apply for Class A's in towns that will issue them easily - then start a massive discrimination lawsuit against the towns that wont on the basis of the sexuality thing. Won't matter if the anti-gay thing is true or not - it will create a huge stink.

 

[dd]

You wonder why something is not done?

Quite a long number of years ago, GOAL submitted a bill to rewrite the gun laws of MA, taking OUT the word “may” and including the word “shall” and also included a provision to protect the licensing authority from liability should a licensee break the law with a gun. Unfortunately, the COPs opposed this bill and it went down to defeat with little fanfare. Gun owners of MA have so little chance of reform in this area as to not even be a blip on the a$$ of Life.

Consider the chances of roll back of the state tax to eliminate the surcharge that was only “temporary.” What abut the temporary sales tax? Or the temporary toll on the Tobin Bridge that was supposed to be eliminated when the bridge was paid for? Etc. And many taxpayers are impacted by these matters, many more than the number of gun owners.

 

[KMaurer]

Find some well-qualified black applicant who was denied an ALP license in Boston or one of the big anti-RKBA bastions. Then argue that local discretion in licensing creates a "disparate effect" on protected minority groups. The facts are overwhelmingly on your side, as is federal law. The areas of the state with the highest concentration of Blacks and Hispanics (e.g., Boston, Springfield, Randolph, Brockton, Lawrence) also tend to be the ones where it's next to impossible to get an unrestricted LTC-A. Since we're talking guns, expect to be ignored anyway.

Ken