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
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.
As I have written in other places the state will shoot itself in the foot it it tries to punish us for Bruen - why do you think they responded so quickly and without legal prompting?
They know the house of cards is shaking and they don't want to have any light shining down right now.

The state is on record stating that the current licensing scheme makes Massachusetts safer than other states - that scheme includes the current prescription for a specific type of training.
In order to increase the requirement they would need to provide overwhelming evidence that they were in error with their claim and show how increasing requirements would be narrowly tailored to an objective increase in public gun safety - that's not going to happen since ND accidents are simply not an issue here.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,270
Likes
12,805
Location
People's Republik
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
If I were a first time applicant asked to write a letter to the chief, I might simply affix that advisory - "see attached"
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,628
SCOTUS and Thomas was pretty damn clear. NO subjective standards. Suitability as MA has it right now is a subjective standard and that is unconstitutional. If they specifically define unsuitable to mean xyz, etc then SCOTUS may allow it. If it’s not spelled out and clear, it doesn’t comply with NYSRPA
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
SCOTUS and Thomas was pretty damn clear. NO subjective standards. Suitability as MA has it right now is a subjective standard and that is unconstitutional. If they specifically define unsuitable to mean xyz, etc then SCOTUS may allow it. If it’s not spelled out and clear, it doesn’t comply with NYSRPA
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. 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).

The only way this doesn't pass muster is if they determine judicial review must happen before denial - then they will change the law to have a judicial review of the evidence with the applicant allowed to present counter argument.
Our objective and legal objective are two different things at times.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
41,892
Likes
71,079
It does ...

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.

• Licensing authorities may continue to inquire about the reasons why the applicant
wants a license, but may only use that information to assess the prohibited person and
suitability requirements of the statute. They may not use that information to deny or
restrict a license for lack of a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
41,892
Likes
71,079
If I were a first time applicant asked to write a letter to the chief, I might simply affix that advisory - "see attached"
Better advise for first time applicants asked for a letter:

Email Comm2A and GOAL. Do what they tell you to do. This way, if you are denied, they have ammo to go after the chief.

For the existing gun owners ... yes, attach this letter.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
The Gov and AG already put on their show of virtue signaling and outrage for the press. This won't get coverage. Can't let them appear to be wrong on this issue, after all!
If pressed they will simply state they used restrictions where there was "reliable and credible information" but they wanted to offer the applicant the opportunity to turn their life around by a showing of trust - [rofl]
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,270
Likes
12,805
Location
People's Republik
Better advise for first time applicants asked for a letter:

Email Comm2A and GOAL. Do what they tell you to do. This way, if you are denied, they have ammo to go after the chief.

For the existing gun owners ... yes, attach this letter.
Completely agreed.

I often teach by example. Not always "good" example.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
5,472
Likes
4,056
Location
SoNH
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.
The truly “unsuitable” will not apply for an LTC - never have, never will.
 

SJan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
3,881
Likes
1,654
Location
Attleboro, MA
So the licensing authority can inquire blah blah blah but can not use that to deny the applicant.

I bet they will.

And I hope they get slapped,. Hard.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,374
Likes
9,392
Location
Taunton
Any eligibility consideration outside the scope of statutory disqualification is by definition non-objective and therefore unconstitutional per Bruen.
Read Bruen again - the surety laws were referenced and used as evidence that carry could not be eclipsed but didn't comment further on the need to post surety.
The state could enact surety laws for those that meet the unsuitable standard (judicial review) and have the court set the level of surety to post - how many people could post a few hundred k to get a license? And that level could be upheld given the cost of medical for an errant gun shot wound.

Also - don't take my push back as agreement that restrictions are okay. I am a 2A absolutist who is trying to argue that we need to understand how these arguments work and what the actual effects of the opinion will be.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
41,892
Likes
71,079
Completely agreed.

I often teach by example. Not always "good" example.
Your example wasn't bad.

The reason I posted what I did is because a lot of people mess up and then consult with a lawyer. That makes the lawyers job after extra hard or impossible.

But, if the person sets it up in a way that a denial will help a lawyer, it is a win all around.
 

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,270
Likes
12,805
Location
People's Republik
Your example wasn't bad.

The reason I posted what I did is because a lot of people mess up and then consult with a lawyer. That makes the lawyers job after extra hard or impossible.

But, if the person sets it up in a way that a denial will help a lawyer, it is a win all around.
You're completely right here.

Especially for a new applicant, lurking on here, it's better to be accurate here than to have too much fun being cheeky. We want them getting through with as little friction as possible. And, as you note, if there is resistance we want to put their lawyer in the best position possible.
 
Top Bottom