The arguments above seem plausible if this were the practice across the whole state, but I would like the court to justify their reasoning for these specific towns to restrict licenses when so many others do not issue restrictions. Residents from any number of cities and towns adjacent to Boston can carry a firearm in Boston, but Boston residents cannot.
Right. The court also ignored the equal protection arguments. Basically: it's ok to discriminate because the policy itself does not violate the 2A. That's not what the plaintiffs were arguing. The argument is "even if the policy does not itself violate the 2A, the unequal application of the policy violates equal protection". The court failed to address how doctors and lawyers should be granted unrestricted licenses, but secretaries should be restricted. By further extension, people in the privileged occupations tend not to be underrepresented minorities. The policy disproportionately affects minorities, which is illegal regardless of the 2A implications. Unfortunately, the racial discrimination argument is difficult to prove.