There is as much confusion now, as there was when the revisions/changes in the laws were first voted on and signed. Many posts claiming what the effect of the new laws would be, were based on rumor and speculation. I was disappointed in much of the outcome, as I am sure others were. Even now, misinformation, rumor, and speculation still dominate these posts.
I, for one, am still not 100% sure about some of the changes that are frequently the topic of conversation.
It appears to me that denials do not automatically put the burden of furnishing a 'reason' on any issuing authority, but merely reiterates the ability of the injured party to have his day in court. They could have done this before anyway, (and bear the expense), same as before.
As far as a reason for a restriction, I think this has changed considerably. Arbitrary, baseless restrictions may be presented to the court for judgement, again at the petitioners expense, and the issuing authority must now defend their reasoning to a greater degree. In reality this could have also been done before, but the likelihood of a favorable outcome was next to nil. This is a real advancement!
I think in this case "letter of denial" more accurately means the defendants testimony in court, under oath. The law may call for a "letter", but it has little meaning. IMHO