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

[Picton]

That’s true, but you cut out the sentence of Section 131 prior to that:

If that’s not a subjective standard, I don’t know what is. It even says “may deny” which is the logical negated equivalent of “may issue”.

Yes.

That's why Maura's enforcement notice directed the cops' attention to the second parts of that statute, and NOT to the sentence of Sec 131 prior. @kalash didn't cut that out: Maura did.

 

[AHM]

the fact they can still ask you why you want a LTC, and use it to try to declare you unsuitable is BS

They can ask until they're blue in the face.
Where's the law that says you have to answer?

Requiring 2 or three letters of recommendation could be argued to be objective.

Where's the law that says you have to provide them?

Those approaches may be an express ticket to Litigation World,
but Thomas, et. al. gave us a real force multiplier

---

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"

Information and Examples of the Application of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.),
Section 922, Subsection (g)(3):
PERSONS WHO ARE UNLAWFUL USERS OF OR ADDICTED TO ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE

You can historical justify limitations on concealed carry in public, ...

States can forbid open carry, or concealed carry, but not both.

The truly “unsuitable” will not apply for an LTC - never have, never will.

Depends on your definition.

Several FPPs come out of the woodwork on NES alone every year,
asking how to apply for their LTC; it's pitiful.

Are merely "unsuitable" people more or less common than flat-out FPPs?

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.

Was the referenced historical surety some pseudo-bond for civil damages,
or was it merely based on the potential criminal fines for the feared problem?

... 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.

This "suggest"ing ragtime is gonna be a noose around Mass's collective neck.

It's an open door that a higher court could drive a train through by defining or replacing it with
some existing criterion that has carloads of unassailable jurisprudence like "preponderance of the evidence",
"reasonable (articulable) suspicion", "probable cause", "beyond a reasonable doubt", ...

And if it gets to SCOTUS,
they're not gonna pick a well-defined standard that Mass likes.

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.

The inquiries should only have come from non-green towns
aching to keep their foot on our windpipes.

The green towns never needed Marsha's permission
to operate like a shall-issue jurisdiction.

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.

Well, consider that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Things are totally different in NYC ..., NJ, HI and CA. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in those jurisdictions (I think the NJ estimate of 50K is laughably low) who never applied for a carry permit because they knew they were not special enough.

Note also that if the previously cowed masses get their permit, but they can't carry anywhere
because of the "special zones", that is going to harsh a lot of voters' mellows.

The tighter the hoplophobes squeeze the voters,
the worse they're going to do in elections.


I wonder if the NY Post will sense a change in the winds
and become pro-gun. They're certainly not on a quest
to get Strange New Respect from the ruling class with
any of their other editorial positions.

Two obstacles:
...
(b) The historical reluctance of SCOTUS to grant cert even if their rulings are being defied. Hopefully this will change with the current 6-3 split.

With my limited understanding of SCOTUS history,
I suspect that many justices never get a chance to author
an important legal standard despite having decades on the court.

They all write like every one of their litmus test rulings
will be enshrined in a pantheon of case law for the ages.
But frequently even the cases they grant cert to
ain't all that momentous to most folk.

I don't think Thomas and his posse will rest until they get to
lay down the law on their new standard for interpretation.

The Six strung together some bones,
but they've still got to put the meat on them.
They wouldn't have to if the circuits got with the program.
But many circuits are staffed with habitual line-steppers.

 

[Coyote33]

States can forbid open carry, or concealed carry, but not both.

Massachusetts used to force open carry.

 

[Dennis in MA]

There is no such thing as an ALP license.....I'm assuming you mean "all lawful purposes".

I believe you mean that you either get denied......or get an ltc with no restrictions.

I'm working on an ALF permit. Legal to hunt Gordon Shumways.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

While what you say is true, the situation you describe has historically resulted in a denial/revocation of an LTC; not adding restrictions. One of the upcoming battles is obtaining due process in matters regarding the denial of a constitutional right.