• 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.

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

SJan said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you wrote "I want a license because I need to purchase a gun to get rid of my whore wife" that would pretty much be objective evidence that you are unsuitable
Short of a dumpster fire letter like that I don't think any reasonable letter will be able to allow a determination of unsuitable.
Dear chief (insert name)
I am writing this letter to fulfil the requirement of a written statement of reason to apply for a license to carry in Massachusetts.
My reason for applying is that I wish to enjoy the right to carry a firearm in public for self protection as recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
Per the "Joint Advisory Regarding the Massachusetts Firearms Licensing System After the Supreme Court’s Decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen" this letter satifies this requirement

Thank you for your time and consideration
signed - Joe Public
Click to expand...
 
From Bruen:

"Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license."
 
Bladerunner said:
From Bruen:

"Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have “may issue” licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license."
Click to expand...
Right.

And that kind of subjective suitability is not acceptable under Bruen
 
jhblaze1 said:
Licensing authorities should continue to enforce the “prohibited person” and “suitability” provisions of the license-to-carry statute. These aspects of the statute are unaffected by Bruen.


umm, no.
Click to expand...
what does the law/statute say about "unsuitability?" It has to be articulated by the LO, no?
 
Thinking on it, for folks who wanted to hammer her for fighting back against Bruen,  this is a good one to lean on. A competitor who points out her bravado in "resisting" followed by this tail-tucked statement days later would find himself on better footing.
 
And speaking of cucks where is that son of a bitch Charlie Baker this afternoon. He was up there the other day basically telling the supreme Court to go pound sand and now the person that is probably going to take his chair in the corner office has had to bend over and kiss our asses .
 
crispnipz said:
@Wramos93 good news buddy
Click to expand...

Good point. Post up if your PD gets ahold of you, @Wramos93

So... I'd assume, based on this guidance, that PDs will soon be sending notices out to their restricted licensees, voiding their restrictions. Granted that "soon" is not "immediately."

Meanwhile, I guess nobody with restrictions has to worry about cops finding them carrying, starting now.
 
Picton said:
Good point. Post up if your PD gets ahold of you, @Wramos93

So... I'd assume, based on this guidance, that PDs will soon be sending notices out to their restricted licensees, voiding their restrictions. Granted that "soon" is not "immediately."

Meanwhile, I guess nobody with restrictions has to worry about cops finding them carrying, starting now.
Click to expand...
I was just going to hit u up 🤣🤣
 
not new guy said:
Meh. Unsuitable is still at the licensing officer's discretion, right?
Click to expand...
To me, it doesn't sound like anything changed. As you said, unsuitable is what the chief says it is. If you don't agree with that then you go to court. Isn't that what people are doing now? According to what I read, the licensing authority can still ask you the reason why you want a firearm. Now I'm assuming you have to answer that question, either that or you may be considered an unsuitable person. If the reason doesn't matter, then why ask?
 
This sounds exactly like one of the cases that Comm2A brought before SCOTUS a year or so ago and was denied cert. It's the same thing regarding the arbitrary nature of licensing. Shall issue still doesn't mean anything since 'granting' the license is squishy.
 
Restrictions are dead, I am thankful to God for answering my prayers.

Remaining issues in (subjective) descending order of urgency:

  • State restrictions on locations of carrying (the BS that NY is trying and may spread to other states like no carry by default, public transit, etc)
  • Reciprocity (driver's license style)
  • State preemption/local firearm ordinances
  • AWBs
  • Mag limits
  • Suppressors
  • Repeal of NFA
  • Repeal of FOPA
  • Dissolution of the ATF

Picton said:
Good point. Post up if your PD gets ahold of you, @Wramos93

So... I'd assume, based on this guidance, that PDs will soon be sending notices out to their restricted licensees, voiding their restrictions. Granted that "soon" is not "immediately."

Meanwhile, I guess nobody with restrictions has to worry about cops finding them carrying, starting now.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna be really interested to see how Brookline, Boston, and Cambridge PDs respond to this in particular. Medford was already starting to bend the knee/partially.

Wramos93 said:
Thank you JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS !!!!
Click to expand...

1656193730855.jpg
 
crispnipz said:
Restrictions are dead, I am thankful to God for answering my prayers.

Remaining issues in (subjective) descending order of urgency:

  • State restrictions on locations of carrying (the BS that NY is trying and may spread to other states like no carry by default, public transit, etc)
  • Reciprocity (driver's license style)
  • State preemption/local firearm ordinances
  • AWBs
  • Mag limits
  • Suppressors
  • Repeal of NFA
  • Repeal of FOPA
  • Dissolution of the ATF


I'm gonna be really interested to see how Brookline, Boston, and Cambridge PDs respond to this in particular. Medford was already starting to bend the knee/partially.



View attachment 632699
Click to expand...
Lmfaoooooo calling Medford as we speak !
 
Sparky123 said:
To me, it doesn't sound like anything changed. As you said, unsuitable is what the chief says it is. If you don't agree with that then you go to court. Isn't that what people are doing now? According to what I read, the licensing authority can still ask you the reason why you want a firearm. Now I'm assuming you have to answer that question, either that or you may be considered an unsuitable person. If the reason doesn't matter, then why ask?
Click to expand...
No, unsuitable is codified in statute:

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).
 
Sparky123 said:
To me, it doesn't sound like anything changed. As you said, unsuitable is what the chief says it is. If you don't agree with that then you go to court. Isn't that what people are doing now? According to what I read, the licensing authority can still ask you the reason why you want a firearm. Now I'm assuming you have to answer that question, either that or you may be considered an unsuitable person. If the reason doesn't matter, then why ask?
Click to expand...

Because MA will NOT admit they were ever wrong. This is their way of having their cake and eating it too.

They can ask (many won't). "For all legal purposes" has always been a good answer, but where CoPs could prod further in the past and decide you're unsuitable if they got a hair across their ass, that's now a fully acceptable answer. They cannot deny unless you're statutorily prohibited, and while in the past they didn't worry about that because they could just slap you with restrictions that made your LTC a de-facto NON-LTC, they can no longer do that now.

They MUST deny you if they don't want you carrying, and that becomes actionable by you. And judges will now be bound by Bruen when you sue. If they approve your license, they can no longer hide behind restrictions. Again, most CoPs won't worry about that because they realize LTC holders are generally not a problem, but the few cranky marsupials now have to toe the line or go to court in a new judicial environment.
 
Sparky123 said:
To me, it doesn't sound like anything changed. As you said, unsuitable is what the chief says it is. If you don't agree with that then you go to court. Isn't that what people are doing now? According to what I read, the licensing authority can still ask you the reason why you want a firearm. Now I'm assuming you have to answer that question, either that or you may be considered an unsuitable person. If the reason doesn't matter, then why ask?
Click to expand...
They can't issue restrictions on an ltc. That is a win.
 

Similar threads

I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
657
chris_1001
chris_1001
Concerns Grow Over ISIS-K Attack in the US; Former Top General Says, 'I Think This Is Inevitable'
Replies
18
Views
415
G4Y4HK
G
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
4
Views
265
Drix
Drix
I love this article.
Replies
0
Views
152
rogersmithiii
R
I don't even have an AK and I want it
Replies
19
Views
489
Agnotology
Agnotology
Back
Top Bottom