lawyered up

[appraiser]

On what basis are you going to appeal?

As long as they issue a license, they are well within Heller IMHO.

There were places that were " B ramming" applicants and getting away with it because there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, and there is nothing to keep any municipality from restricting your license.

 

[peshooter]

On what basis are you going to appeal?

As long as they issue a license, they are well within Heller IMHO.

There were places that were " B ramming" applicants and getting away with it because there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, and there is nothing to keep any municipality from restricting your license.

"B ramming" sounds an awful lot to me like "infringing" on our supposed "right" to "keep and bear arms"...?

Aside from the fact that I haven't had a LTC before, I think I'm an almost ideal candidate for it in terms of stability of character, firearms experience and I guess I have a pretty decent reason to fear for personal safety as well (very often need to be on foot in bad parts of Brockton and Roxbury after dark, though I don't need to carry large sums of money so maybe that doesn't even count...). As long as I don't royally screw up the interview, I think any reason they give to restrict my license will be arbitrary and/or unreasonable?

I'm sure the reason they will give will be "inexperience" or something like that - maybe I could cut a deal that they'll remove restrictions after I take CCW classes? Does that happen?

Is the FLRB anti-gun or are they afraid of pissing off police chiefs in the red/black towns or something? I would think it should be relatively easy to get them to remove a restriction but obviously that must not be the case or you'd hear about it more.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As long as I don't royally screw up the interview, I think any reason they give to restrict my license will be arbitrary and/or unreasonable?

Unfortunately, what you think is about as relevant to the process as what I think about the 2nd amendment to NYC licensing policies.

The "red towns", including Boston, tend to apply a standard of a "special need that goes beyond the general fear of crime to which all citizens are subject", and tends to hang the restriction hat on a "lack of need" peg. The legal standard is "any restriction the licensing authority deems appropriate", so you just have to prove the chief did not deem the restriction appropriate when (s)he imposed it and you win. Moyer v. Sherborne also establishes you can win on a denial when it is "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion". I've read decisions in restriction appeals (pre and post Heller) and the track record is NOT encouraging.

Is the FLRB anti-gun or are they afraid of pissing off police chiefs in the red/black towns or something?

The FLRB does not have the authority to remove a restriction. The only thing the FLRB can do is remove the state level statutory disqualifier in limited circumstances and thus allow, but not require, a chief to issue an LTC to a person with certain offenses that are otherwise disqualifiers.

I would think it should be relatively easy

Relatively easy? Try "not even authorized by law". The FLRB does not have that power.

 

[Len-2A Training]

peshooter, if you read the "charter" of FLRB, they do NOT have authority over restrictions.

I do wish you luck. I do know that Atty. Jesse Cohen has in the past been successful making the case for some clients that resulted in no restrictions.

 

[peshooter]

Wow, good to know... Thanks, Rob and Len. Woe is me, I guess.

I kind of had assumed the FLRB was in place as a check/balance to keep police chiefs from abusing their power. Guess I underestimated how absurd the gun laws are here. We all know the saying about assuming things...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I kind of had assumed the FLRB was in place as a check/balance to keep police chiefs from abusing their power.

You heard wrong.

When the MA gun control act of 1998 was put in place, lots of minor offenses that were formerly not a problem became lifetime disqualifiers. Add to that the fact that the DUI first offense max penalty was increased 2.5 years in 1994, thus making a first offense DUI after that change a lifetime federal DQ.

GOAL tried to get that reversed, but the only thing that was politically saleable was a review board that could restore gun rights for certain offenders (some but not all misdemeanors). Unfortunately, the feds have taken the position that an FLRB restoration does not "count" since an FLRB relief is not a "restoration of civil rights" since the state never took your right to vote away for such an offense, therefore, you did not lose you "civil rights", just "gun rights" (and federal law recognizes only restoration of civil rights).

A successful FLRB petition does not order a police chief to do anything - it simply removes a statutory barrier preventing a chief from issuing an LTC even if (s)he wanted to.

CT, however, has a Board of Firearms Permit Examiners that functions exactly as you thought the MA FLRB functions.

 

[lord1234]

I may be in the minority, I have an unrestricted LTC from non-green town, my youngest son went to get his LTC-A and I told him to request a H&T for his first license, I didn't want him carrying with the attendant risks (mainly lawsuits if you ever use it)
I also told all my boys that once they get an LTC they have to be squeeky clean, no drinking and driving etc as even one DUI and you lose your LTC for an awful long time.
When they have moved out of the house and are out of College go for an unrestricted license if they are under my roof they dance to my fiddle and I don't need the hassle, if they want an All Lawful Purposes then move out and pay for everything themselves.

This just became an out yourself thread didn't it?

 

[newportri]

How will a lawyer argue that a restriction should be removed? Unlike RI where restrictions have no legality (the AG stil gives them), MA laws allows restrictions (an is May Issue) so I am curious to what approach a lawyer would take. I have an interview in March for my non-resident permit, so I am interested in this.

I would think that documenting the Chief's policy regarding restrictions is a good way to start, and this should be available through Open Records. If he is on record saying he doesn't give anyone under 25 an un-restricted permit, I think there is an obvious age-discrimination. If he responds that there is no policy in writing, then maybe it can be argued that applicants are no given due process since some might get an un-restricted permit the first time.

 

[M1911]

How will a lawyer argue that a restriction should be removed? Unlike RI where restrictions have no legality (the AG stil gives them), MA laws allows restrictions (an is May Issue) so I am curious to what approach a lawyer would take. I have an interview in March for my non-resident permit, so I am interested in this.

Rob has effectively already told you. The lawyer would have to argue that the restriction was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion." The longer term legal argument would be that the law is unconstitutional given the decision in Heller v. DC and MacDonald v. Chicago, but that would require multi-year battle that would cost ~$1M to get to the SCOTUS.

I would think that documenting the Chief's policy regarding restrictions is a good way to start, and this should be available through Open Records. If he is on record saying he doesn't give anyone under 25 an un-restricted permit, I think there is an obvious age-discrimination. If he responds that there is no policy in writing, then maybe it can be argued that applicants are no given due process since some might get an un-restricted permit the first time.

If there was an easy legal argument that can be applied in most circumstances, it would already have been used successfully. There isn't.

Given the mixed record of success, your focus should be on not getting the restriction in the first place, not on removing the restriction via the court system.

 

[newportri]

Thanks.

 

[terraformer]

The longer term legal argument would be that the law is unconstitutional given the decision in Heller v. DC and MacDonald v. Chicago, but that would require multi-year battle that would cost ~$1M to get to the SCOTUS.

Which we have filed in the 1st circuit and is called Hightower v. Boston. Cost all depends on how much the state fights, on what points and how. If they alter the system with legislation then the state could dwarf whatever the heller case cost very quickly. It's also not the end all be all of the issue as we will have CoPs who refuse to accept the decision. The loss of power will be sobering for the chiefs and it is not clear all will take it without trying to see what they can get away with.

 

[Len-2A Training]

How will a lawyer argue that a restriction should be removed? Unlike RI where restrictions have no legality (the AG stil gives them), MA laws allows restrictions (an is May Issue) so I am curious to what approach a lawyer would take. I have an interview in March for my non-resident permit, so I am interested in this.

I would think that documenting the Chief's policy regarding restrictions is a good way to start, and this should be available through Open Records. If he is on record saying he doesn't give anyone under 25 an un-restricted permit, I think there is an obvious age-discrimination. If he responds that there is no policy in writing, then maybe it can be argued that applicants are no given due process since some might get an un-restricted permit the first time.

I am not a lawyer, but can tell you that it is unwise to discuss legal strategy in an open forum. This is also why such discussions in gov't bodies take place (legally) in Executive Session.

Also in most cases, chiefs will stonewall FOIA requests that outline their strategy in issuing permits.

Further to the point, I'm aware of some tactics that Atty Jesse Cohen used successfully WITHOUT going to court!