I hope this means what I think it does? (Restrictions gone?)

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
Yes
Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the “good reason” provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen. Authorities should no longer deny, or impose restrictions on, a license to carry because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm. An applicant who is neither a “prohibited person” or “unsuitable” must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.

The state has answered the ruling of Bruen (that restricting the right of self defense by firearm in public is unconstitutional).

The rest of our discussion on the Dicta within Bruen is for future cases to reference (AWB, capacity, etc)
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
Meh. Unsuitable is still at the licensing officer's discretion, right?
I believe Unsuitable is defined by statute - prohibited means federally prohibited and unsuitable is those who aren't federal prohibited but are objectively not capable.
I have to research this further though

Edit:
Link to law
A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.

Likely to be upheld as it offers some level of due process and given the historical surety laws
Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f).
 
Last edited:

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
23,390
Likes
39,390
Location
MA
Meh. Unsuitable is still at the licensing officer's discretion, right?

This.

I suspect, in practice, that everyone will be found "suitable" if they're not statutorily prohibited. But it sucks that they're clinging to this stupid verbiage.

Unsuitable means that a CoP must be able to articulate...

"(i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.”

I think that few CoPs will want to put their necks out in case of a marginal suitability question. All but the most rabid will err on the side of issuance.
 
Last edited:

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,059
Likes
3,748
Going forward, if an applicant is not a prohibited person and is not unsuitable, the applicant must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.
Looks like no more restricted, either you get denied or ALP.

And they give a (sort of) definition of unsuitable:

Second, if the applicant is not a prohibited person, the licensing authority may deny (or revoke or suspend) a license to carry if the applicant is “unsuitable.” The statute instructs that a "determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.”
 

greencobra

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
24,508
Likes
21,609
sounds like not much change on the restriction question if i'm reading it right???

” Under this third element, if the applicant lacks good reason to fear injury to their person or property, the licensing authority may impose restrictions on the license, limiting the licensee to carrying a firearm for hunting, target shooting, employment, or the like. "
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,059
Likes
3,748
It does look like these instructions will tend to “level the playing field” for issuing LTC. In many of the western towns, the CoP treats the LTC as shall issue unrestricted. (My CoP doesn’t even ask why you want an LTC and always just automatically fills in ALP for reason.). These directives firstly eliminate the restricted license. Secondly, they make it clear that the CoP (since they are ultimately responsible for issuing the LTC) must be able to clearly articulate why the applicant would be a risk to public safety. Unless there is an obvious reason that someone presents such a risk, I think most CoP wouldn’t want to go through the hassle of trying to prove it in a marginal case.
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,355
Likes
1,182
Location
Southeastern, MA
And the letter writing bullshit should be gone too! I don't think any department would be dumb enough to continue this practice, but wait, it is ASSachusetts!
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,059
Likes
3,748
sounds like not much change on the restriction question if i'm reading it right???

” Under this third element, if the applicant lacks good reason to fear injury to their person or property, the licensing authority may impose restrictions on the license, limiting the licensee to carrying a firearm for hunting, target shooting, employment, or the like. "
They are saying that that section no longer applies.

But in light of Bruen’s holding that New York’s “proper cause” requirement violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, licensing authorities should no longer enforce the third element above, i.e., the “good reason” aspect of the license-to-carry statute, under which the applicant must identify a reasons or reasons for obtaining a license, and the licensing authority may restrict the license upon determining that the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property.
ETA As with all Mass gun laws, they make it as confusing as possible.
 

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
14,167
Likes
12,274
the fact they can still ask you why you want a LTC, and use it to try to declare you unsuitable is BS

Not a prohibited person, not a felon or misda-felon, not a danger to themselves or others based on actual reasons ( threatened to kill themselves or others and were charged) etc.

Now if you are one of those people who were denied because at one point you had a TRO that was not extended, a 208 or 209 order ( or what is the new one in MA 258?) that is no longer in force,does this clear the way now?

I am specifically thinking of the Dentist that sued Wakefield and lost that had a vacated RO and lost under the suitability BS

And speaking of Wakefield the DeSisto case needs to be re-opened and fixed too
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,059
Likes
3,748
And the letter writing bullshit should be gone too! I don't think any department would be dumb enough to continue this practice, but wait, it is ASSachusetts!
It is interesting that the guidance doesn't address the fact that different jurisdictions have different requirements. I think that they are going by the fact that
Bruen’s holdings really only said that subjective requirements were unconstitutional, as long as it was objective it was OK. Requiring 2 or three letters of recommendation could be argued to be objective.
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,059
Likes
3,748
I would bet it is, because either Heller or McDonald allowed reasonable licensing requirements
Yeah, if anything they will increase the training requirements just to punish us for winning. It always gets back to the fact that it isn’t really about gun control, but about controlling the people who want to take their selfdefense into their own hands and not be dependent on the government for it. If you can defend yourself, the government looses a great deal of control over you.
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,355
Likes
1,182
Location
Southeastern, MA
sounds like not much change on the restriction question if i'm reading it right???

” Under this third element, if the applicant lacks good reason to fear injury to their person or property, the licensing authority may impose restrictions on the license, limiting the licensee to carrying a firearm for hunting, target shooting, employment, or the like. "
Walking out of your house, going to a supermarket, pharmacy, hospital, clinic to get an abortion, bank, packy, casino, dope shop, strip joint, riding the Orange or Red Line etc., basically life in general is the reason why I fear injury to myself. I'm sure that third element is going to be amended once the first lawsuit is filed. The lawsuit is not going to be cheap either because it is a violation of a right, not a regular crime.
 

free

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
2,424
Likes
1,514
Location
Medway
sounds like not much change on the restriction question if i'm reading it right???

” Under this third element, if the applicant lacks good reason to fear injury to their person or property, the licensing authority may impose restrictions on the license, limiting the licensee to carrying a firearm for hunting, target shooting, employment, or the like. "
Reading it wrong. Read further down in the guidance letter.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
Those who were on the edge
@nstassel can you comment on the DeSisto case ( to the extent that you can)

Not @nstassel but I would expect if DeSisto reapplies they would need to show that he is still an illegal user of controlled substances (objectively prohibited)
If he submits a drug test result that shows he is clean, I don't see the state being able to show "reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior"
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
And the letter writing bullshit should be gone too! I don't think any department would be dumb enough to continue this practice, but wait, it is ASSachusetts!
This does not mean that a licensing authority is foreclosed from inquiring of the applicant about their reasons for seeking a license to carry.2 An answer to any such question may bear on whether an applicant is a prohibited person or is unsuitable under the definition set forth in the statute. 3 But an applicant’s answer to such a question may not be used to deny the application because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to request the license, or to restrict the permissible uses of the license based on an appearance that the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property.

They can require a letter but you can simply direct them to this joint advisory in the letter as proof that a license SHALL be issued if you are not prohibited or unsuitable
 

cathouse01

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,059
Likes
3,748
Still have to have a license to buy anything, which I think should be overturned.
It will be interesting if anyone brings the whole “Permit to Purchase” under a FID question back to the front. The thing with Mass is that the LTC is a license to carry on the public ways, so it is covered by the concealed carry regime. The weird thing about Mass is that you can only buy/own a handgun if you have a concealed carry license. Even in CA you can own a handgun without a license, you just can’t carry it. The inability to own a handgun without a carry license is actually prohibited by Heller. Mass has gotten around it with the “Permit to Purchase”, but I can see that being struct down along with the whole FID house of cards if we can get it to SCOTUS while we still have a majority in favor of the 2nd.

You can historical justify limitations on concealed carry in public, but there is no way you can justify the need to have a license/permit to simply own a gun (particularly a handgun) for home protection.
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,355
Likes
1,182
Location
Southeastern, MA
It is interesting that the guidance doesn't address the fact that different jurisdictions have different requirements. I think that they are going by the fact that
Bruen’s holdings really only said that subjective requirements were unconstitutional, as long as it was objective it was OK. Requiring 2 or three letters of recommendation could be argued to be objective.
I would think that any person's opinion of you is subjective, not objective, regardless of what they write or think. Do you honestly think that a letter of recommendation is going to say anything bad about a person or their character? The letter of recommendation bullshit was designed to make it harder for you to initially apply and to eventually give up going forward with the application.
 
Top Bottom