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

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

"...it sucks they're sticking with the stupid verbage" I think sticking with the stupid verbiage is a good thing. Not philosophically, but politically. Its existence isn't good for rights, but it's also barely relevant. But it has the advantage of letting them save face, which means less desire/need to exact revenge.
 
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.”

Well….

Being an extremist with extremist views, as defined by the US Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States, who has testified in sworn congressional testimony that the biggest threat to National Security are domestic terrorists with extremist views about vaccines and elections would seem to indicate nobody who held those view would be suitable to own firearms.

That is easily supportable in a liberal court with a liberal judge who only watches CNN.
 
"...it sucks they're sticking with the stupid verbage" I think sticking with the stupid verbiage is a good thing. Not philosophically, but politically. Its existence isn't good for rights, but it's also barely relevant. But it has the advantage of letting them save face, which means less desire/need to exact revenge.

Especially if the alternative is them trying to go ape-shit and push through what NYS is trying to push through right now.

I'll take a win, especially if I know it's only a matter of time before I get more (AWB and mags). I don't need to scorch the earth. That's the mistake the left made, both on abortion and on guns: you gotta know when to take the win and stop waving your schmedzer in the other guy's face. Because one of these days, the other guy will be in charge, and it won't be pretty.
 
Especially if the alternative is them trying to go ape-shit and push through what NYS is trying to push through right now.

I'll take a win, especially if I know it's only a matter of time before I get more (AWB and mags). I don't need to scorch the earth. That's the mistake the left made, both on abortion and on guns: you gotta know when to take the win and stop waving your schmedzer in the other guy's face. Because one of these days, the other guy will be in charge, and it won't be pretty.
Are you implying a principled approach? That's crazy talk
 
Well….

Being an extremist with extremist views, as defined by the US Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States, who has testified in sworn congressional testimony that the biggest threat to National Security are domestic terrorists with extremist views about vaccines and elections would seem to indicate nobody who held those view would be suitable to own firearms.

That is easily supportable in a liberal court with a liberal judge who only watches CNN.

I mean, sure. If you want to believe we need to cower in fear all the time, then go for it.

I think Maura and her ilk are back on their heels these days. She's smarter than to pick this fight. She's got her eyes on a bigger prize right now. MA has had its peepee slapped, and this notice tells us they know it. There are stricter eyes watching them now.
 
Am I wrong to assume this does not immediately affect existing LTC holders but new applicants only?
Contact Comm2A and GOAL. But looks like you should be able to get your restrictions removed.

Donate some money when they answer.
 
Last edited:
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.
Yup, was using shorthand for all lawful purposes, which is the reason I though you always give when going for an unrestricted license. At least it’s what I’ve always used.
 
You can historical justify limitations on concealed carry in public, but there is no way you can justify the need to have a license/permit to simply own a gun (particularly a handgun) for home protection.
What if this person is 18, 19, or 20 years old?
 
What if this person is 18, 19, or 20 years old?
As far as I know the 2nd makes no specific mention of age. I’m not up on the history of age restrictions for firearms, but historically I think any age restriction was based on the “age of majority”, the legal age when someone is considered an adult. In most states it is now 18 (since the voting age has been reduced to that age).
 
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.
Wasn't it spelled out in the ruling as far as what was considered reasons for denial ?
I thought I read it was limited to the federal standards , Felony conviction , drug user ect.
I could be wrong , but that's what I recall.
Thomas knew what would happen if it wasn't spelled out clearly.
 
Bruen won't even move the needle on how many people carry in public in MA. Only 8% (last I checked) of LTCs were restricted; most with LTC's don't carry daily; and the number of additional people who will get LTCs once suitability is made objective is relatively small. The possibility that a random subject is legally armed and carrying will only change by a miniscule amount, and the AG is probably smart enough to figure it out. The fact that ordinaries do carry in MA is well known to police, and they are aware that the chances someone spotted carrying is doing so legally is rather high, and while being careful, don't immediately jump into "I got me a dirtbag" mode.

The battle in MA is going to be to preserve suitability; the power to strip gun rights without an adverse court finding such as conviction, etc. I don't expect action to make LTCs in general useless (NY style) to be a real issue except perhaps in one of Linsky's annual filing. Note that MA did not even call an emergency session of the legislature.

Things are totally different in NYC (Much of upstate NY has been effectively shall Issue/unrestricted for many decades ... BTDT, twice), 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. So, absent a successful counterattack by the politburo, the number of people carrying in those states will increase dramatically, No longer will police in those states be able to assume with 99% confidence that an ordinary carrying is committing a crime, and will have to conduct themselves accordingly.
 
I mean, sure. If you want to believe we need to cower in fear all the time, then go for it.

I think Maura and her ilk are back on their heels these days. She's smarter than to pick this fight. She's got her eyes on a bigger prize right now. MA has had its peepee slapped, and this notice tells us they know it. There are stricter eyes watching them now.
Yup. Our side cannot "blink" on this.


Bruen won't even move the needle on how many people carry in public in MA. Only 8% (last I checked) of LTCs were restricted; most with LTC's don't carry daily; and the number of additional people who will get LTCs once suitability is made objective is relatively small.
There are a lot of people who don't carry (or carry much) right now because they are worried about being found out and the resulting jeapordy from "suitability". If suitability is taken out of the equation, those who fall in between "concealed" and "open" will probably want to carry. This means a sweatshirt with IWB, or a t-shirt only in summer, etc.

The battle in MA is going to be to preserve suitability; the power to strip gun rights without an adverse court finding such as conviction, etc.
Yes, that is true. Is it really that much of a battle, though? I thought this was going to be pretty cut and dry. Sure, they may put up a fuss, but it is VERY clear what the Supreme Court wants, and suitability "ain't it".
 
Yes, that is true. Is it really that much of a battle, though? I thought this was going to be pretty cut and dry. Sure, they may put up a fuss, but it is VERY clear what the Supreme Court wants, and suitability "ain't it".
Two obstacles:

(a) The willingness of both MA state and Federal First Circuit courts to use any rationalization to find against a gun rights. Example include Draper v. Healy where there was summary judgement against us; the Village Vault case where the court ruled against us on unregulated thefthouse fees and of course Morin who lacked standing because he did not exhaust all methods of legally obtaining a handgun since he did not inherit one.

(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.
 
Wasn't it spelled out in the ruling as far as what was considered reasons for denial ?
I thought I read it was limited to the federal standards , Felony conviction , drug user ect.
I could be wrong , but that's what I recall.
Thomas knew what would happen if it wasn't spelled out clearly.

For suitability in Mass there is a definition as what "evidence" is required for a licencing officer to deny along with the right to judicial review.
That review will now need to survive Thomas's new stricter than strict scrutiny.
Mass courts will twist logic and force people to exhaust finances to win but with a few good cases the suitability will collapse to statutory federal prohibition.
But that will take time and money to get there
 
For suitability in Mass there is a definition as what "evidence" is required for a licencing officer to deny along with the right to judicial review.
That review will now need to survive Thomas's new stricter than strict scrutiny.
Mass courts will twist logic and force people to exhaust finances to win but with a few good cases the suitability will collapse to statutory federal prohibition.
But that will take time and money to get there
The definition can be found in various court cases and includes:
- Heresay
- Findings of CWOF, Not Guilty and nol prosse
- There is no right to confront your accuser or even have him/her identified
- An expired RO, even if there were no accusations it was violated while in effect
 
Last edited:
Two obstacles:

(a) The willingness of both MA state and Federal First Circuit courts to use any rationalization to find against a gun rights. Example include Draper v. Healy where there was summary judgement against us; the Village Vault case where the court ruled against us on unregulated thefthouse fees and of course Morin who lacked standing because he did not exhaust all methods of legally obtaining a handgun since he did not inherit one.

(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.
Those are pretty big obstacles, and I guess it WILL be a big battle. Hopefully the (b) will be easier. The (a) has nothing new or changed, so that will have to be forced by (b).
 
Those are pretty big obstacles, and I guess it WILL be a big battle. Hopefully the (b) will be easier. The (a) has nothing new or changed, so that will have to be forced by (b).
Sometimes when things are incredibly obvious even the 1st circuit will find favorably in a guns case - the non citizen and heathen devil weed cases come to mind. One change over the years, starting pre-Buren (and hopefully accelerating) is that a pro-gun decision by a federal court is no longer "unthinkable" or "obviously not gonna happen". Practically speaking, the Overton Window has opened up just a bit.
 
The definition can be found in various court cases and includes:
- Heresay
- Findings of CWOF, Not Guilty and nol prosse
- There is no right to confront your accuser or even have him/her identified
- An expired RO, even if there were no accusations it was violated while in effect
Yes those items are included which previously were not subject to any level of scrutiny or even proof.
Now the "evidence" of unsuitability will need to survive the proscribed scrutiny under Bruen which will be very hard at the appellate level (Mass kangaroo courts will rubber stamp anything)
 
Yes those items are included which previously were not subject to any level of scrutiny or even proof.
Now the "evidence" of unsuitability should and hopefully will need to survive the proscribed scrutiny under Bruen which will be very hard at the appellate level (Mass kangaroo courts will rubber stamp anything)
FIFY
 
Yes those items are included which previously were not subject to any level of scrutiny or even proof.
Now the "evidence" of unsuitability will need to survive the proscribed scrutiny under Bruen which will be very hard at the appellate level (Mass kangaroo courts will rubber stamp anything)


Yeah, but you know that lower MA courts are going to need a big ole E. Honda slap in the face by the feds before they would "obey" on something like that. Unless, the state forestalls this by legally defining suitability somehow even if its guidelines from eops.
 
Yeah, but you know that lower MA courts are going to need a big ole E. Honda slap in the face by the feds before they would "obey" on something like that. Unless, the state forestalls this by legally defining suitability somehow even if its guidelines from eops.
In my dreams:

Clarence Thomas to MA/1st Circuit:
e-honda-slap.gif
 
In my dreams:

Clarence Thomas to MA/1st Circuit:
View attachment 633151
I'd be perfectly OK with this, personally
dhalsim-punch.gif
 
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).
That’s true, but you cut out the sentence of Section 131 prior to that:
The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry.
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”.
 
Back
Top Bottom