Gov. Maura Healey pledges to push for strong gun laws in Massachusetts

[Coyote33]

Here, I'll repeat it yet again: "it was a really big f'ing deal for those shit city dwellers who were affected. But for the rest of us, it was of zero consequence. That's just a fact. So I stand by the statement that Bruen, so far, has had little real effect here."

It does not say it was irrelevant. To me, it says it had "zero impact" on most. That is a truth. That does not lessen its importance overall, just putting it in perspective overall. Maybe I'm just reading it different.

 

[Picton]

That does not lessen its importance overall, just putting it in perspective overall.

This is what many of us are telling you: you don't SEE the "perspective overall."

Bruen weakens the State's ability to impose and maintain restrictions on our constitutional rights. And it devises a new legal test to ensure that that ability will be weakened further, inevitably. THAT is the overall perspective. Court decisions are often more important than just the people they affect directly. In this case, that importance lies in the text/history/tradition test. This has all been explained in this thread, numerous times.

Example: Brown v Board only directly affected the schools in Topeka, Kansas. But its impact eventually spread over the entire country. Bruen is similar: it only really affected NYS. The fact that a state as marsupial as MA reacted to it so quickly ought to remind you that its eventual impact will be massive, for all of us.

It's a momentous decision nationwide, whether you like it or not. Lol.

Maybe I'm just reading it different.

Yep. Darn tootin'.

 

[Coyote33]

This is what many of us are telling you: you don't SEE the "perspective overall."

Bruen weakens the State's ability to impose and maintain restrictions on our constitutional rights. And it devises a new legal test to ensure that that ability will be weakened further, inevitably. THAT is the overall perspective. Court decisions are often more important than just the people they affect directly. In this case, that importance lies in the text/history/tradition test. This has all been explained in this thread, numerous times.

Example: Brown v Board only directly affected the schools in Topeka, Kansas. But its impact eventually spread over the entire country. Bruen is similar: it only really affected NYS. The fact that MA reacted to it so quickly ought to remind you that its eventual impact will be massive, for all of us.

It's a momentous decision nationwide, whether you like it or not. Lol.

I agree with all of this. Oh, and I do like it. I don't know why one might think otherwise.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Here, I'll repeat it yet again

 

[pastera]

I think @Coyote33's issue stems from him only viewing the impact of Bruen's direct case law that licenses must be issued based on objective standards.
And since that singular aspect of the decision doesn't have great effect here in Mass to the majority, he doesn't see it as important as the rest of us.
The problem is that view is horribly myopic - look at what happened to license issuance in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii. The unobtainable suddenly became possible. Yes, they passed new laws trying to bypass Bruen but those will be relatively short lived. Alito's response to the request to stay the NY law proves that SCOTUS is ready to pounce if the circuit Court drags its feet.

The direct decision in Bruen has had massive impact in places where licenses were only available to the elite and connected. It actually had effect on a quarter of the population.

Now it's time for Bruen's dicta in the TH&T standard to percolate through the circuits in other aspects of the 2A.
This is where things start to get mirky - because SCOTUS didn't clearly define exactly what is within Text, History and Tradition there will be some disagreement among the circuits. NY and Maryland have already gone FR on restrictions trying everything to see.what will be allowed. However even the antigun legal minds admit most ot NY's law has no chance of survival.

Just because an individual's personal anti-gun pet peeves haven't been rectified doesn't mean a particular decision was not monumental.

 

[EJFudd]

Not true - I copied his post and bolded the relevant section.
It is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills that the intent of @EJFudd's post is that because only a small percentage of people in Mass were positively effected that Bruen was essentially irrelevant.

Because for those that were helped by Bruen it was a big deal.
Research is done to find cures for rare diseases - should we not spend money and time so save such a small percentage of people?

You don't seem to care about the facts I posted or the actual words that I posted... but then again, you said that Bruen was the equivalent of freeing the slaves (see how that misquote thing can work both ways if we start to get into it?).

So please, let's drop it here. Bruen is NOT "essentially irrelevant." You know that. Your words, not mine.

 

[EJFudd]

Not sure if this was posted, but can someone share the article which said 96% of licenses were issued without restrictions? I’m aware of nearly identical data (96% and then 99% with Boston and Springfield) for LTC denial rates, is the glob(e) mixing the two?

An entire spreadsheet on the topic of license numbers and types by city/town was posted or linked here sometime back. I could not find it via the search function, but maybe someone else can find it. I could only find a recent Boston Globe DimocRAT article. That's where those numbers came from.

I'll find it again and post it here (EDIT: posted below)

++++++++++

Boston, Springfield begin to lift gun license restrictions after Supreme Court decision

Democratic state lawmakers have left open the possibility of pursuing a legislative response to the Supreme Court decision. Read more at Boston.com.

www.boston.com

The Boston Police Department says it has moved to lift restrictions on hundreds of existing gun licenses, with potentially thousands more to come in the city and elsewhere, as police departments pivot in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that is quickly reshaping Massachusetts gun law.

The effort to remove limits on existing licenses to carry in Boston, Springfield, and other communities comes after state officials told police they should no longer place restrictions on people who fail to cite a “good reason” for carrying a concealed firearm. Some police say that even if the limits on someone’s license have yet to be formally lifted, they may be unable to enforce the restrictions anyway. The shift could impact nearly 20,000 people who are licensed to carry in Massachusetts, and in cities and towns where officials have routinely restricted approved gun permits — saying, for example, firearms can only be taken to and from a range — the recent actions mark a dramatic change in how guns are regulated.

Boston police have long said that applicants “must show good reason” for wanting a firearm when applying for a license, using a part of state law that suburban chiefs say they largely didn’t consider when issuing permits. In 2021 alone, roughly two-thirds of the nearly 2,900 licenses Boston issued — or 1,945 in total — came with restrictions, according to data provided by Boston police. It was not immediately clear how widespread such moves are in the rest of Massachusetts, where local officials’ implementation of gun licensing standards can vary widely from community to community. It also ultimately concerns a small share of the state’s 477,500 active licenses to carry, 96 percent of which were issued without restrictions, state data show.

 

[Coyote33]

since that singular aspect of the decision doesn't have great effect here in Mass to the majority, he doesn't see it as important as the rest of us.

Oh, it is important. I'm just pointing out that it does not directly affect a majority of gun owners in the state. You're getting all hung up on ... , on something.

The direct decision in Bruen has had massive impact in places where licenses were only available to the elite and connected. It actually had effect on a quarter of the population.

So, you are saying 1/4 of the population of Massachusetts is directly affected by Bruen? Please show us those numbers.

No kidding, right? They just don't get it.

 

[pastera]

So, you are saying 1/4 of the population of Massachusetts is directly affected by Bruen? Please show us those numbers.

The direct decision in Bruen has had massive impact in places where licenses were only available to the elite and connected. It actually had effect on a quarter of the population.

See that light blue text - that's a link to the article.
The quarter refers to the US population, not Massachusetts.
For Massachusetts it offered relief to 100% of the population. Doesn't matter that a particular city doesn't enforce an unconstitutional law on its people, the very fact that the law exists is an infringement. Further, the fact that only part of an otherwise indistinguishable populous is forced to endure an infringement is a second infringement in itself.

 

[pastera]

An entire spreadsheet on the topic of license numbers and types by city/town was posted or linked here sometime back. I could not find it via the search function, but maybe someone else can find it. I could only find a recent Boston Globe DimocRAT article. That's where those numbers came from.

I'll find it again and post it here (EDIT: posted below)

++++++++++

Boston, Springfield begin to lift gun license restrictions after Supreme Court decision

Democratic state lawmakers have left open the possibility of pursuing a legislative response to the Supreme Court decision. Read more at Boston.com.

www.boston.com

The Boston Police Department says it has moved to lift restrictions on hundreds of existing gun licenses, with potentially thousands more to come in the city and elsewhere, as police departments pivot in the face of a Supreme Court ruling that is quickly reshaping Massachusetts gun law.

The effort to remove limits on existing licenses to carry in Boston, Springfield, and other communities comes after state officials told police they should no longer place restrictions on people who fail to cite a “good reason” for carrying a concealed firearm. Some police say that even if the limits on someone’s license have yet to be formally lifted, they may be unable to enforce the restrictions anyway. The shift could impact nearly 20,000 people who are licensed to carry in Massachusetts, and in cities and towns where officials have routinely restricted approved gun permits — saying, for example, firearms can only be taken to and from a range — the recent actions mark a dramatic change in how guns are regulated.

Boston police have long said that applicants “must show good reason” for wanting a firearm when applying for a license, using a part of state law that suburban chiefs say they largely didn’t consider when issuing permits. In 2021 alone, roughly two-thirds of the nearly 2,900 licenses Boston issued — or 1,945 in total — came with restrictions, according to data provided by Boston police. It was not immediately clear how widespread such moves are in the rest of Massachusetts, where local officials’ implementation of gun licensing standards can vary widely from community to community. It also ultimately concerns a small share of the state’s 477,500 active licenses to carry, 96 percent of which were issued without restrictions, state data show.

And how many people simply didn't apply for a license because of the chilling effect of the "good reason" requirements?

 

[EJFudd]

And how many people simply didn't apply for a license because of the chilling effect of the "good reason" requirements?

Stop it. You're killing me here.

 

[ddeck]

See that light blue text - that's a link to the article.
The quarter refers to the US population, not Massachusetts.
For Massachusetts it offered relief to 100% of the population. Doesn't matter that a particular city doesn't enforce an unconstitutional law on its people, the very fact that the law exists is an infringement. Further, the fact that only part of an otherwise indistinguishable populous is forced to endure an infringement is a second infringement in itself.

When I first got my LTC (Class A - Large Capacity back then I believe) in 1999, the small town of 17,000 people in which I was raised gave me restrictions (Hunting/target). This was based on the chief of police having a personal hatred of individuals owning firearms. When I moved to an even smaller town of 2,000 people, they refused to lift the restriction. In that town, it was more of an inbred culture. Only people who were originally from the town could get an unrestricted license. I finally moved to a much larger city of 40,000 people and they lifted the restrictions. This was because the licensing officer had a belief that all individuals had a right to carry firearms everywhere. (For the record, I have never had 1 dealing with the police, so there was no concern on that front).

So, although it would seem that Bruen really only affected Boston and some smaller places, my experience shows that restrictions were in different areas. I stated my case that there should be no restrictions, but the chief had sole discretion.

Although I had an unrestricted license before Bruen, I am extremely happy that it removes all of the BS for everyone across the state.

 

[pastera]

Stop it. You're killing me here.

Why?
Am I wrong?
Do you have direct evidence that "good cause" restrictions did not cause a chilling effect contrary to the holdings of countless legal scholars?
Not.even personal experience?
Because if you haven't personally experienced a person just giving up on gun ownership because the BS Mass puts you through then you don't advocate for ownership much at all.

BTW - shitty attempt at shaming as a way to end a loss.

Appeal to shame

An appeal to shame is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone's actions or arguments are described as "shameful" (meaning, looked down upon by others in society) and therefore wrong.

rationalwiki.org

 

[Broc]

Oh, it is important. I'm just pointing out that it does not directly affect a majority of gun owners in the state. You're getting all hung up on ... , on something.

You are wrong. It affects every gun owner in MA and every gun owner with restrictions today, which is a large percentage.

Remember, you were only one chief away from making the LTC process complete hell, this applies to every town.

It also limits what the State can do in the future.

Summary: it helps everyone.

 

[Coyote33]

Doesn't matter that a particular city doesn't enforce an unconstitutional law on its people, the very fact that the law exists is an infringement. Further, the fact that only part of an otherwise indistinguishable populous is forced to endure an infringement is a second infringement in itself.

OK, now I see where you went off the rails. I don't disagree with your first sentence. Sure, it is an infringement. You are claiming it exists for everyone, even if they are not affected. I was saying it only affects a small portion of people. This is the same thing.

... So, although it would seem that Bruen really only affected Boston and some smaller places, my experience shows that restrictions were in different areas. I stated my case that there should be no restrictions, but the chief had sole discretion.

Totally agree with you.

Although I had an unrestricted license before Bruen, I am extremely happy that it removes all of the BS for everyone across the state.

Me too!

You are wrong. It affects every gun owner in MA and every gun owner with restrictions today, which is a large percentage.

A large percentage of MA gun owners had restrictions before Bruen? I don't think that is true. I'm open to be wrong if you can show me the numbers. I'm guessing less than 5%, 10% tops.

Remember, you were only one chief away from making the LTC process complete hell, this applies to every town.
It also limits what the State can do in the future.
Summary: it helps everyone.

True.
True.
False. Some already had "help", by having a decent chief/department.

 

[Broc]

OK, now I see where you went off the rails. I don't disagree with your first sentence. Sure, it is an infringement. You are claiming it exists for everyone, even if they are not affected. I was saying it only affects a small portion of people. This is the same thing.


True.
True.
False. Some already had "help", by having a decent chief/department.

this is going way over your head. Read what you wrote.

Your second point: "Already had help by having a decent chief" ... the decent chief only lasts while he is around. You never know what you will get with the next one. One day the town is green, the next it is a sh*t show.

Your first point: You are still wrong saying it affects a small portion of people. It affect every gun owner in the State.

 

[Artie]

Oh, it is important. I'm just pointing out that it does not directly affect a majority of gun owners in the state. You're getting all hung up on ... , on something.

Looking at it in a different way, what if the ruling only affected a few negatively? It doesn't affect the majority, especially me, so why should I care?

I know, what ifs.

First they came for xxxx, and I did not speak out—because I was not xxxx

 

[556USER]

Sadly they think gun laws curb gun violence.

Actually I think the politicians know that’s what a lot of their voters believe. The politicians know that gun laws don’t curb violence. Their aim is to disarm the public so as to institute full control. Violence is just a popular way to sell disarmament.

 

[Picton]

False. Some already had "help", by having a decent chief/department.

...so it required "help" for them to exercise their rights? How is that constitutional?

Do you not see how unacceptable it is for some people to be treated differently under the law than other people?

 

[Len-2A Training]

And how many people simply didn't apply for a license because of the chilling effect of the "good reason" requirements?

Why?
Am I wrong?
Do you have direct evidence that "good cause" restrictions did not cause a chilling effect contrary to the holdings of countless legal scholars?
Not.even personal experience?
Because if you haven't personally experienced a person just giving up on gun ownership because the BS Mass puts you through then you don't advocate for ownership much at all.

My Wife and I both had unrestricted LTCs in MA for >40 yrs. When we moved to NH, I applied for my NR LTC and had good enough reason to be certain to remain unrestricted. We gave up on the idea of my Wife applying for a NR LTC, as she never carried and would never have passed the "good reason" test/inquisition. So yes, it does affect good people and make them decide not to bother applying.

For the record, MGLs force NRs who want to continue teaching MA gun courses and issuing the MSP certificates to keep an active MA LTC (NR or resident). Likewise, MGL requires everyone who does a LEOSA qualification in MA to keep an active LTC (in direct violation of the Fed Law that enacted LEOSA).

 

[Coyote33]

The quarter refers to the US population, not Massachusetts.

I thought this entire conversation was about Massachusetts. Now you are conflating MA not only with NY, but the entire country? No wonder you're confused.

It doesn't affect the majority, especially me, so why should I care?

Who said anything about "caring", other than you just now? The conversation was about who was affected, not caring one way or another. For the record, I am very happy restrictions were lifted for all in MA, and it is now "shall issue" for all in MA.

...so it required "help" for them to exercise their rights? How is that constitutional?

Do you not see how unacceptable it is for some people to be treated differently under the law than other people?

It is not. The fact that it fixed that is great. Of course it is unacceptable! Why would you think otherwise?

 

[Picton]

It is not. The fact that it fixed that is great. Of course it is unacceptable! Why would you think otherwise?

...I don't.

You're the one minimizing it, not me. So is @EJFudd

I'm not the only one pointing out that you seem to be hung up on an "if it doesn't affect me/someone I know/a huge number of gun owners, then what's all the fuss about?" viewpoint. That's an opinion you seem to embrace. I reject it.

Your post #277, I think, spells out your viewpoint. I think it's repugnant.

 

[pastera]

I thought this entire conversation was about Massachusetts. Now you are conflating MA not only with NY, but the entire country? No wonder you're confused.

I hope this is not how you are in real life - You seem to have a very inflated view of yourself as seen through your posts

If we limit the discussion to only Massachusetts residents then 100% of people received benefit from Bruen. You can opine to the contrary but all evidence is to the contrary.

Supreme Court tosses Mass. gun law in latest Second Amendment win

The Massachusetts case concerned the plaintiff being denied a new firearm license because he had two out-of-state misdemeanor convictions for weapons possession.

nypost.com

UPDATE: Massachusetts FRB will no longer print LTCs with restrictions

The Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau released guidance to police departments today advising that 1) it is the responsibility of the police department to remove restrictions and request the rep…

lawguida.com

Boston, Springfield begin to lift gun license restrictions after Supreme Court decision - The Boston Globe

In cities where officials have routinely restricted approved gun permits — saying, for example, firearms can only be taken to and from the range — the decision could mark a dramatic change in how guns are regulated.

www.bostonglobe.com

So every person who may want to keep and bear arms has been positively effected by Bruen.
If I am incorrect and confused, please supply citations disputing my position.

Who said anything about "caring", other than you just now? The conversation was about who was affected, not caring one way or another. For the record, I am very happy restrictions were lifted for all in MA, and it is now "shall issue" for all in MA.

So you admit that all 351 jurisdictions transitioned from 'may issue' to 'shall issue' due to Bruen - is that not proof of positive impact for all Massachusetts residents?
Or am I confused and there is a super secret restriction scheme still in place because they actually just swapped the definition of may and shall...

 

[pastera]

Bruen decision certainly does help everyone.

I wonder how + and we will see how this effects 'suitability' requirements and the LTC suspension appeal process.

Especially if the licensee had his LTC suspended for 'suitability' that is not based on a criminal offense... because they're still actively suspending LTCs over "suitability" when the licensee is not a PP nor charged with a crime.

Morin v. Lyver, No. 20-1280 (1st Cir. 2021)

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment in this action challenging the denial of Plaintiff's application for a "permit to purchase" a firearm, holding that Defendant provided no basis on appeal for overturning the district court's grant of summary judgment to...

law.justia.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100322zor_fcgj.pdf

21-1160
MORIN, ALFRED V. LYVER, WILLIAM, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

 

[puška m70]

Morin v. Lyver, No. 20-1280 (1st Cir. 2021)

The First Circuit affirmed Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment in this action challenging the denial of Plaintiff's application for a "permit to purchase" a firearm, holding that Defendant provided no basis on appeal for overturning the district court's grant of summary judgment to...

law.justia.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100322zor_fcgj.pdf

Thanks! I can't understand the legalese - mind translating, LOL? The plantiff was convicted of crimes?

 

[Hoover]

Massachusetts isn’t even remotely close to CA, NY or NJ regarding gun control. This is what the upcoming session looks like in CA and unlike Massachusetts, CA won’t send these to committee to die like almos all in mass do.


View: https://twitter.com/2aupdates/status/1615166593616515072?s=61&t=VvkzUgcGgoCNuKBtDUcnOg

 

[Broc]

I hope this is not how you are in real life - You seem to have a very inflated view of yourself as seen through your posts

If we limit the discussion to only Massachusetts residents then 100% of people received benefit from Bruen. You can opine to the contrary but all evidence is to the contrary.

Supreme Court tosses Mass. gun law in latest Second Amendment win

The Massachusetts case concerned the plaintiff being denied a new firearm license because he had two out-of-state misdemeanor convictions for weapons possession.

nypost.com

UPDATE: Massachusetts FRB will no longer print LTCs with restrictions

The Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau released guidance to police departments today advising that 1) it is the responsibility of the police department to remove restrictions and request the rep…

lawguida.com

Boston, Springfield begin to lift gun license restrictions after Supreme Court decision - The Boston Globe

In cities where officials have routinely restricted approved gun permits — saying, for example, firearms can only be taken to and from the range — the decision could mark a dramatic change in how guns are regulated.

www.bostonglobe.com

So every person who may want to keep and bear arms has been positively effected by Bruen.
If I am incorrect and confused, please supply citations disputing my position.


So you admit that all 351 jurisdictions transitioned from 'may issue' to 'shall issue' due to Bruen - is that not proof of positive impact for all Massachusetts residents?
Or am I confused and there is a super secret restriction scheme still in place because they actually just swapped the definition of may and shall...

You are spot on.

Adding - Boston started proactively printing new licenses without restrictions and mailing them to people.

The Boston application still lists references but they say to not fill that out.

Boston does not do interviews for renewals anymore. Now the renewal you pay online, upload everything and call it a day.

The first point was 100% due to Bruen. Over 12K current gun owners and countless future gun owners benefited from this.

 

[DW357]

The first point was 100% due to Bruen. Over 12K current gun owners and countless future gun owners benefited from this.

get back to me when it benefits millions of gun owners….




/sarcasm

 

[Broc]

get back to me when it benefits millions of gun owners….




/sarcasm

Bruh, are we splitting that case of ammo or what?

Sorry, I had to.

 

[DW357]

Bruh, are we splitting that case of ammo or what?