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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
can't read it on my phone. can someone give a cliffs notes version? thanks.
I'm an idiot.
Who is "they"?
All residents of MA who have/want an LTC.
One interesting thing in the decision is that the court clearly states that the 2nd is "different" from the 1st, and that the protections (for example, prohibition on prior restraint) that have evolved to protect the first amendment are not necessarily applicable to the second.
One interesting thing in the decision is that the court clearly states that the 2nd is "different" from the 1st, and that the protections (for example, prohibition on prior restraint) that have evolved to protect the first amendment are not necessarily applicable to the second.
Rob: in your opinion will such a distinction pass muster in SCOTUS?
Hightower asserts that "the Boston police apparently do not
issue unrestricted Class B licenses to openly carry revolvers and
other non-large capacity handguns," and so, de facto, the only way
for her to carry a firearm, openly or not, outside her home is with
an unrestricted Class A license.
Hightower cites no authority for this proposition, aside
from certain comments that do not address the matter made by
defense counsel at a hearing. The statute itself only provides
that Class B licenses "shall not entitle the holder thereof to
carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any
public way or place." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(b) (emphasis
added). The defendants claim that "a Class B license is sufficient
to keep a regular capacity firearm, rifle, or shotgun in one's home
or to carry it openly in public." The defendants also point out
that Hightower could apply for a restricted Class A license that
would allow her to carry a firearm in public.
That's a fascinating question. The court read chap 140 sec 131 very literally:Does this interpretation of Class B allowing open carry have any legal weight?
It seems to be an either / or situation and one could easily come to the conclusion that a LTC/B allows for the carrying of a concealed unloaded non-large capacity handgun or the carrying of a loaded handgun carried in other than a concealed manner. See footnote 5:provided, however, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place
You can draw your own conclusions, but you're on your own.The statute only prevents the holder of a Class B license from "carry[ing] or possess[ing] a loaded firearm in a concealed
manner in any public way or place." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140,§ 131(b) (emphasis added).
The decision is very clear on its interpretation that a Class B License allows for the carry of a loaded firearm in an unconcealed manner for self protection. The unknown is does this decision create case law that would be binding?
It depends on so many things that it is hard to answer that with precision. Two big variables are "who is on the court when the case is heard", "will cert be granted", and "what is the exact aspect of the right being litigated?".Rob: in your opinion will such a distinction pass muster in SCOTUS?
[Bold emphasis mine]Class B licenses "shall not entitle the holder
thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner
in any public way or place," "shall not entitle the holder thereof
to possess a large capacity firearm," and are to be issued "subject
to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of
such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper." Id.
§ 131(b).
[Insertions of the word "footnote" mine]Hightower lacks standing to
raise a claim as to a Class B license; she has never applied for
such a license, been denied one, or had such a license revoked.
Such a license would allow her to carry a non-concealed,[Footnote] 5 non-large
capacity weapon in public [Footnote] 6. For the same reason, she lacks
standing as to an FID card, which would allow her to possess a
firearm in her home or place of business.
The statute only prevents the holder of a Class B license
from "carry[ing] or possess[ing] a loaded firearm in a concealed
manner in any public way or place." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140,
§ 131(b) (emphasis added).
Hightower asserts that "the Boston police apparently do not
issue unrestricted Class B licenses to openly carry revolvers and
other non-large capacity handguns," and so, de facto, the only way
for her to carry a firearm, openly or not, outside her home is with
an unrestricted Class A license.
Hightower cites no authority for this proposition, aside
from certain comments that do not address the matter made by
defense counsel at a hearing. The statute itself only provides
that Class B licenses "shall not entitle the holder thereof to
carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any
public way or place." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131(b) (emphasis
added). The defendants claim that "a Class B license is sufficient
to keep a regular capacity firearm, rifle, or shotgun in one's home
or to carry it openly in public." The defendants also point out
that Hightower could apply for a restricted Class A license that
would allow her to carry a firearm in public.
This pisses me off more than anything else about the decision.One interesting thing in the decision is that the court clearly states that the 2nd is "different" from the 1st, and that the protections (for example, prohibition on prior restraint) that have evolved to protect the first amendment are not necessarily applicable to the second.
Once again I will tell you about a friend who had to sue his CoP to get his LTC, he got LTC-B and open carried a S&W 38 stubby all over Boston. Sure, cops would hassle him, call their C.O., and would let him go with his gun, still on his hip, loaded. Does that help?