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

[safetyfirst2125]

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.

Between wide open “unsuitable” and the new red flag law, getting and keeping an LTC in a state full of Karens remains a relative crapshoot.

Don’t piss off the Karens I guess.

 

[In God We Trust]

Maura gonna be big mad over this. I see a hate scissor in her husbands future

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I wasn’t even aware there WAS a statute that stipulated “good reason” in MA.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I wasn’t even aware there WAS a statute that stipulated “good reason” in MA.

Pretty sure that was part of the 2014 updates

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Pretty sure that was part of the 2014 updates

Guess I’m luck I had a “green” thinking CoP….

 

[pastera]

Between wide open “unsuitable” and the new red flag law, getting and keeping an LTC in a state full of Karens remains a relative crapshoot.

Don’t piss off the Karens I guess.

Unsuitable is not wide open and the AG/EOPS response is proof that they understand their tenuous position post-Bruen.

AFA red flag laws - yup, karens goin'ta Karen. But that will open them up for review and shutdown.

 

[El_Guapo77]

Maura gonna be big mad over this. I see a hate scissor in her husbands future

I don't think she cares that much anymore probably putting her efforts to governors race

 

[pastera]

I don't think she cares that much anymore probably putting her efforts to governors race

She is going to use this as a bludgeon - those republicans packed the court and now everyone is going to die in the gun filled streets

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Alright who’s going to Brookline or Boston?

Given the EOPS recommendation, I would hope the FRB would just issue licenses without restrictions no matter what the PD requests.

 

[appraiser]

I don't think she cares that much anymore probably putting her efforts to governors race

I think that there were enough inquiries from licensing authorities that she had to give an opinion, based on a strict reading of the Supreme Court ruling.

And Thomas' writing for the majority was anything but ambiguous, she didn't have any wiggle room or anything to hang her hat on that would give her a way to stop the tide.

Now as great as this is for you in MA, I'm curious how the other 8 states and DC are going to handle this.

 

[buketduder]

Looks like Mass will try to go to a CT system of issuance..which it seems the Supreme Court called shall issue and not may issue. From experience some towns issue within 7 days or less without questions while other interview and take months.... The only difference in Connecticut is once you have it you never deal with the town again...you can renew by Mail

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I'm optimistic that people in his situation will benefit. My concern is that if discretion is eliminated what will replace it in Mass. Hopefully it will be along the lines of disqualification for violent crimes or felonies but I bet there's going to be alot of jockeying over the next years.

A fundamental problem has always been the refusal of MA courts to recognize a firearms license denial or revocation as a punishment, thus a much lower standard od due process was required.

Now that the 2A is "real" it is hard to argue that depriving someone of it is not punishment, any more than would be depriving someone of the right to vote based on an administrative non-conviction disposition of a case. Once that hurdle is overcome, a lot of the abuses will be easy to fight.

This may also provide an opening for federal litigation on the issue of stripping a right based on innuendo, unproven allegations, witnesses the applicant may not confront, cross examine or even know the identity of.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think that there were enough inquiries from licensing authorities that she had to give an opinion, based on a strict reading of the Supreme Court ruling.

And Thomas' writing for the majority was anything but ambiguous, she didn't have any wiggle room or anything to hang her hat on that would give her a way to stop the tide.

Now as great as this is for you in MA, I'm curious how the other 8 states and DC are going to handle this.

NJ and CA have already rolled over, but are working to make carry permits nearly useless.

 

[Picton]

Between wide open “unsuitable” and the new red flag law, getting and keeping an LTC in a state full of Karens remains a relative crapshoot.

Don’t piss off the Karens I guess.

Here's my take (IANAL):

Before, if you pissed off a Karen, the CoP (if he believed the Karen and not you) could just go ahead and slap some restrictions on you with no judicial oversight. I doubt he'd need to explain it to you, even if you filed a FOIA request, and you might never find out who the Karen was. So you'd keep your guns, it wouldn't be a technical revocation, but it would still punish you.

Now, if you piss off a Karen, the CoP has to actually revoke you. You can then go to court, where the CoP will have to cough up the Karen's name. You can then subpoena her, and she'll need to articulate her fear in court.

I think that's a significant change, if I'm right in my take.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

Here's my take (IANAL):

Before, if you pissed off a Karen, the CoP (if he believed the Karen and not you) could just go ahead and slap some restrictions on you with no judicial oversight. I doubt he'd need to explain it to you, even if you filed a FOIA request, and you might never find out who the Karen was. So you'd keep your guns, it wouldn't be a technical revocation, but it would still punish you.

Now, if you piss off a Karen, the CoP has to actually revoke you. You can then go to court, where the CoP will have to cough up the Karen's name. You can then subpoena her, and she'll need to articulate her fear in court.

I think that's a significant change, if I'm right in my take.

they do not have to disclose "Karens" name in court, they can call her a "confidential Informant" and at that point, she may or may not even be a real person!!

 

[Picton]

they do not have to disclose "Karens" name in court, they can call her a "confidential Informant" and at that point, she may or may not even be a real person!!

Yes, but there should still be legal recourse for LTC holders who get people complaining about them. I suspect that, knowing that, the CoPs will be very careful about how high their personal bar will be before they revoke. Now, they'll need to worry about whether a judge will agree with them... and that's a judge in the post-Bruen environment.

 

[El_Guapo77]

I might have missed it but here is a statement from GOAL from thier Facebook page:

Attorney General Maura Healey Issues Guidance on Bruen

Surprisingly, AG Maura Healey released some guidance to law enforcement and the licensing system as a whole concerning last week’s landmark Second Amendment civil rights decision New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

It appears she has changed course and is, at least in part, capitulating and correcting some of the injustices the 2A community has faced for decades. Among these are:

“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.”

We do not believe that this guidance covers the entirety of the decision, whether legally or in the spirit of it. We will continue to review it and respond accordingly if needed.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/ago-eopss-ltc-guidance/download

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

Unsuitable is not wide open and the AG/EOPS response is proof that they understand their tenuous position post-Bruen.

AFA red flag laws - yup, karens goin'ta Karen. But that will open them up for review and shutdown.

The "unsuitable" clause still looks wide open to me. Both sections defining unsuitability contain "suggest" and leave it to the discretion of the licensing authority.

Went to the school board to complain about sex-ed for your pre-schooler? Unsuitable on the grounds that you are overly emotional and intimidating.
Got rounded up with the Roe V Wade protesters while you were trying to get home from work? Unsuitable for engaging in civil unrest.

There is no actual standard for suitability.

The AG/EOPS is trying to have their cake and eat it too. The "good reason" clause was done-for as was restrictions on a license; Bruen made that clear. So long as they have a nice squishy "suitability" clause to fall back on they can still deny to their heart's content. This is exactly what was warned about in Bruen. The comparison was made to licensing schemes with "narrow, objective, and definite standards" vs “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,”. I don't see how a statute that requires the licensing officer to determine if some factors "suggest" that the person is unsuitable is in agreement with the findings of Bruen.

The AG/EOPS can drop the part explicitly called out in the decision while keeping more or less the exact same power over who does and does not get a license through the suitability clause. That part will have to be litigated again to make that position explicit.

The win here is no more restrictions on licenses. That is about it. Your ability to obtain or retain a license remains at the whim of the local licensing authority based on how they feel about your suitability.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

Yes, but there should still be legal recourse for LTC holders who get people complaining about them. I suspect that, knowing that, the CoPs will be very careful about how high their personal bar will be before they revoke. Now, they'll need to worry about whether a judge will agree with them... and that's a judge in the post-Bruen environment.

post-Bruen, we shall see!!!!

 

[safetyfirst2125]

The "unsuitable" clause still looks wide open to me. Both sections defining unsuitability contain "suggest" and leave it to the discretion of the licensing authority.

Went to the school board to complain about sex-ed for your pre-schooler? Unsuitable on the grounds that you are overly emotional and intimidating.
Got rounded up with the Roe V Wade protesters while you were trying to get home from work? Unsuitable for engaging in civil unrest.

There is no actual standard for suitability.

The AG/EOPS is trying to have their cake and eat it too. The "good reason" clause was done-for as was restrictions on a license; Bruen made that clear. So long as they have a nice squishy "suitability" clause to fall back on they can still deny to their heart's content. This is exactly what was warned about in Bruen. The comparison was made to licensing schemes with "narrow, objective, and definite standards" vs “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,”. I don't see how a statute that requires the licensing officer to determine if some factors "suggest" that the person is unsuitable is in agreement with the findings of Bruen.

The AG/EOPS can drop the part explicitly called out in the decision while keeping more or less the exact same power over who does and does not get a license through the suitability clause. That part will have to be litigated again to make that position explicit.

The win here is no more restrictions on licenses. That is about it. Your ability to obtain or retain a license remains at the whim of the local licensing authority based on how they feel about your suitability.

That’s my read as well. The reason Healey appeared to “capitulate” was her Lawfare advisors explained it doesn’t matter.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

That’s my read as well. The reason Healey appeared to “capitulate” was her Lawfare advisors explained it doesn’t matter.

that is also my take on this guidance letter.............although after reading the Bruen opinion 3 times in full, i do not agree and feel they are ignoring the most important parts of the opinion to suit them!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mesatchornug]

The "unsuitable" clause still looks wide open to me. Both sections defining unsuitability contain "suggest" and leave it to the discretion of the licensing authority.

Went to the school board to complain about sex-ed for your pre-schooler? Unsuitable on the grounds that you are overly emotional and intimidating.
Got rounded up with the Roe V Wade protesters while you were trying to get home from work? Unsuitable for engaging in civil unrest.

There is no actual standard for suitability.

The AG/EOPS is trying to have their cake and eat it too. The "good reason" clause was done-for as was restrictions on a license; Bruen made that clear. So long as they have a nice squishy "suitability" clause to fall back on they can still deny to their heart's content. This is exactly what was warned about in Bruen. The comparison was made to licensing schemes with "narrow, objective, and definite standards" vs “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,”. I don't see how a statute that requires the licensing officer to determine if some factors "suggest" that the person is unsuitable is in agreement with the findings of Bruen.

The AG/EOPS can drop the part explicitly called out in the decision while keeping more or less the exact same power over who does and does not get a license through the suitability clause. That part will have to be litigated again to make that position explicit.

The win here is no more restrictions on licenses. That is about it. Your ability to obtain or retain a license remains at the whim of the local licensing authority based on how they feel about your suitability.

Go ahead, chief, poke that bear. Cause firearms licensing to be found unconstitutional due to your abuses.

 

[Picton]

So long as they have a nice squishy "suitability" clause to fall back on they can still deny to their heart's content.

No. NOT "to their heart's content." Now they can deny only to the extent that they can defend that in court, and there are pro-RKBA lawyers who will be chomping at the bit to take that case before a judge because, in the post-Bruen environment, they know it's a slam-dunk.

One hopes the CoPs know that, too, but if they don't? That's what courts are for.

As many of us said on the Thursday SCOTUS handed the decision down, the real gift of Clarence Thomas was not that he ganked NYS' discretion. It's that he ruled strict scrutiny now needs to be applied to 2A. That's a monumental shift.

 

[Mesatchornug]

No. NOT "to their heart's content." Now they can deny only to the extent that they can defend that in court, and there are pro-RKBA lawyers who will be champing at the bit to take that case before a judge because, in the post-Bruen environment, they know it's a slam-dunk.

One hopes the CoPs know that, too, but if they don't? That's what courts are for.

As many of us said on the Thursday SCOTUS handed the decision down, the real gift of Clarence Thomas was not that he ganked NYS' discretion. It's that he ruled strict scrutiny now needs to be applied to 2A. That's a monumental shift.

FIFY, only because I know you know

 

[pastera]

that is also my take on this guidance letter.............although after reading the Bruen opinion 3 times in full, i do not agree and feel they are ignoring the most important parts of the opinion to suit them!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't confuse dicta that explains the reasoning with the holding which is the part the opinion with direct force.
There is plenty of awesome dicta but the holding applies to a constitutional right to carry for the purpose of self defense in public, period.

 

[milktree]

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.

I disagree. I think their clinging to the stupid verbiage allows them to save face and still claim "toughest gun laws in the country" and "we're soooooo safe because we have arbitrary and capricious common sense laws restricting ownership". This means they'll be able to avoid losing another court case, which looks good to their supporters.

At the same time, Massachusetts will become, in any practical sense, "Shall Issue", without restrictions.

We get what we want (shall issue, no stupid restrictions) and they get to save face.

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.

Exactly. Effectively shall issue.

Don’t piss off the Karens I guess.

Yea, that's actually good advice in general, for everyone. Don't be an a**h***. If you're going to carry a gun, be more polite than the a**h***s.

 

[Picton]

I disagree. I think their clinging to the stupid verbiage allows them to save face and still claim "toughest gun laws in the country" and "we're soooooo safe because we have arbitrary and capricious common sense laws restricting ownership". This means they'll be able to avoid losing another court case, which looks good to their supporters.

At the same time, Massachusetts will become, in any practical sense, "Shall Issue", without restrictions.

We get what we want (shall issue, no stupid restrictions) and they get to save face.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That's exactly what I'm saying here. But whatever; it's good news. Lol.

 

[Waher]

As many of us said on the Thursday SCOTUS handed the decision down, the real gift of Clarence Thomas was not that he ganked NYS' discretion. It's that he ruled strict scrutiny now needs to be applied to 2A. That's a monumental shift.

Not strict scrutiny, the even higher standard of text, history, and tradition.

 

[ddeck]

I got my first LTC when I was 18-19 and I was in a small town. Following GOAL's advice, I requested all lawful purposes. The LA/CoP in that town was a dufus and put a "hunting/target" restriction on it. Not that it really meant anything. I then moved to a rural town and the lazy LA/CoP left the restriction. Only when I moved to a much larger city was the restriction finally removed.

I have never had any trouble with the law and have never received any citation in my life. That's what I hated so much about the old system (old as of today), you could have nothing on your record and they could still screw with you. It was a complete power trip for them and it didn't matter about the size of the town or the crime, it all depended on whether the LA/CoP felt you were beneath him/her. We always hear about the cases where someone had some prior incident that could be used to deny the license, but many 100% clean people were denied their full rights over the past 30 years.

I still have those licenses from 20 years ago with the restriction to remind myself of it.

 

[rep308]

My first permit issued by Norwood in 1986 had a big red stamp on it “Restricted“ with target and hunting listed as reason for issuance