Well, this went pretty much as expected. The only surprise is how fast the court turned around a decision. At least we can get on with the appeal that much sooner!
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.177626/gov.uscourts.mad.177626.92.0.pdf
Interesting analysis section in particular. Here are my cliffs notes:
- Summary of the Peruta original finding and en blank overturn (pg 19)
- Summary of Wren v. DC (pg 19-20), Hightower (pg. 21 and continues after)
Then on pg 21:
"In short, precedent does not clearly dictate whether the Second Amendment extends to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. In the face of this conflicting authority, the Court will heed the caution urged by the First Circuit that the Second Amendment is an area that “courts should enter only upon necessity and only then by small degree.” Id. at 74 (quoting Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 475). Accordingly,
the Court will follow the approach taken by the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits, and assume for analytical purposes that the Second Amendment extends to protect the right of armed self-defense outside the home. The remaining question is whether the restrictions here survive the applicable level of constitutional scrutiny."
Bolding and underlining are mine. This is something, I think: An acknowledgement that 2A protects rights to carry guns outside the home.
Pg. 24: "The challenged restrictions allow for use of a firearm in defense of the home, and therefore only implicate an individual’s ability to carry a firearm in public. Because that interest is not at the “core” of the Second Amendment right recognized by Heller, analysis at a level of scrutiny lower than the strict scrutiny standard appears to be appropriate."
The crux, also pg. 24: "the First Circuit has not yet adopted the intermediate scrutiny standard for Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations, the Court will avoid using that specific label. Instead, the Court’s analysis will focus on whether defendant has shown a “substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective."
My note: here is where I believe the court erred.
Pg. 28: "To the extent that imposing “sporting,” “target,” “hunting,” and “employment” restrictions on applicants who fail to show “good reason to fear injury” burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, that requirement is substantially related to the state’s important objective in protecting public safety and preventing crime."
Also pg 28: "Although the empirical data may be less than conclusive, the government’s regulation need only be “substantially related” to its important objective of promoting public safety and preventing crime in order to pass constitutional muster."
My note: Note that the burden is related to a "belief" (stated previously) or "objective" (above) that the restrictions protect public safety and prevent crime. It doesn't matter to this court if the restrictions actually achieve those goals, only if the government has a "belief" or "objective". Another error.
Pg 28-29: "Instead of banning the carrying of firearms in public outright, the Massachusetts legislature has balanced the
need to reduce the number of firearms in public with the
needs of individuals who have a heightened need to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In short, the policy that requires applicants to show a specific reason to fear in order to be issued unrestricted firearm licenses, and its authorizing statute, are constitutional."
My note: Collective whims trumping individual rights.
Pg. 30. "Accordingly, the placing of restrictions such as “sporting,” “target,” “hunting,” and “employment” on the licenses of applicants who do not show good reason to fear injury is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment"
Pg. 30: The court ignores the equal protection clause argument since the 2A claim has failed.
If any of my comments above should be removed for any reason I'd be happy to edit them out.