DeadEyeDan
NES Member
I hope this means what I think it does?
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.
Yes
I hope this means what I think 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.
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.Meh. Unsuitable is still at the licensing officer's discretion, right?
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).
Meh. Unsuitable is still at the licensing officer's discretion, right?
Looks like no more restricted, either you get denied or ALP.Going forward, if an applicant is not a prohibited person and is not unsuitable, the applicant must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.
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.”
They are saying that that section no longer applies.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. "
ETA As with all Mass gun laws, they make it as confusing as possible.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.
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 thatAnd 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!
I would bet it is, because either Heller or McDonald allowed reasonable licensing requirementsCan anyone tell me if a LTC safety course is still mandatory?
i hope you're correct. i'm not good at reading these documents.They are saying that that section no longer applies.
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.I would bet it is, because either Heller or McDonald allowed reasonable licensing requirements
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.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.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. "
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)
No - see my prior postingsMeh. Unsuitable is still at the licensing officer's discretion, right?
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.
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.Still have to have a license to buy anything, which I think should be overturned.
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.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.