"Licensing Problem Areas" - MCOPA

[DesertNavy]

I posted on another thread on the topic of moving; what we need is a squeaky clean LTC-A No restrictions who has been renewed at least once to move into a Red town like Watertown. When on renewal the LTC A No restrictions is retricted/downgraded it gets litigated. The left does this thing all the time. Then it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. If unsuccessful the person can move to NH.

 

[pjorg]

I posted on another thread on the topic of moving; what we need is a squeaky clean LTC-A No restrictions who has been renewed at least once to move into a Red town like Watertown. When on renewal the LTC A No restrictions is retricted/downgraded it gets litigated. The left does this thing all the time. Then it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. If unsuccessful the person can move to NH.

Maybe they should save themselves the time and money and just move to NH first.

 

[DesertNavy]

Maybe they should save themselves the time and money and just move to NH first.

I know you're being funny, but unfortunately that's why the nation is where it is right now. To para phrase Niemollers poem; "I stood by when they came for the others, and when they came for me there was no one else." [sad2]

 

[pjorg]

I know you're being funny, but unfortunately that's why the nation is where it is right now. To para phrase Niemollers poem; "I stood by when they came for the others, and when they came for me there was no one else." [sad2]

No, you're right. It was just a joke.

Got to keep it light or else we'll all be dead from hypertension in no time.

 

[DesertNavy]

So true!

 

[Bill Nance]

I know you're being funny, but unfortunately that's why the nation is where it is right now. To para phrase Niemollers poem; "I stood by when they came for the others, and when they came for me there was no one else." [sad2]

What you don't understand is that the vast majority of Ma**h***s LIKE the current system, or would prefer it was even MORE restrictive. The gun laws here truly reflect what the people of the state want. I know WE hate them, but we're a tiny, tiny minority. THAT is why it's better to move. Why fight against a current when you're in a small minority of opinion when you can just move to someplace that's more in keeping with your values?

As for the idea of taking it to court, good luck. You will NEVER...I repeat NEVER, EVER get a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states can't restrict the holy Hell out of or completely eliminate CCW permits. So what exactly do you think you would accomplish with a lawsuit over "suitability" other than a favorable district court ruling that would set no statewide precedent?

As much as I hate it, as much as I think it goes against the U.S. Constitution, we do NOT have a "legal," recognized right to carry.

 

[DesertNavy]

What you don't understand is that the vast majority of Ma**h***s LIKE the current system, or would prefer it was even MORE restrictive. The gun laws here truly reflect what the people of the state want. I know WE hate them, but we're a tiny, tiny minority. THAT is why it's better to move. Why fight against a current when you're in a small minority of opinion when you can just move to someplace that's more in keeping with your values?

As for the idea of taking it to court, good luck. You will NEVER...I repeat NEVER, EVER get a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states can't restrict the holy Hell out of or completely eliminate CCW permits. So what exactly do you think you would accomplish with a lawsuit over "suitability" other than a favorable district court ruling that would set no statewide precedent?

As much as I hate it, as much as I think it goes against the U.S. Constitution, we do NOT have a "legal," recognized right to carry.

Then you're saying McDonald2 in Chicago will be a waste of time?

If we don't even try then you're right it is better to move, but I think it's better to fight.

Remember, the American Revolution was driven by a small group of men. The rest didn't care or were loyalists. If we believe everytime we are told it's not worth it or it's a waste of time, we'd still be in caves hitting rocks together.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I posted on another thread on the topic of moving; what we need is a squeaky clean LTC-A No restrictions who has been renewed at least once to move into a Red town like Watertown. When on renewal the LTC A No restrictions is retricted/downgraded it gets litigated. The left does this thing all the time. Then it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. If unsuccessful the person can move to NH.

This is a good situation that I'd like to test and track. But I don't think it has the legs to get very far in the courts. The licensee would be very likely to prevail in a lower court. In fact I would encourage anyone moving into a red town with an unrestricted LTC to expect it to be unrestricted upon renewal - especially if you've lived in that town for a number of years with an unrestricted LTC already. This is really a slam dunk.

This question, however, will be obviated by one or two good right-to-carry wins. There are several in the Federal courts right now and I'm optimistic that the right-to-carry question will be large resolved before we'll have a good chance to get in a federal pissing match with a chief over imposing restrictions on someone who was previously unrestricted.

 

[yanici]

This is a good situation that I'd like to test and track. But I don't think it has the legs to get very far in the courts. The licensee would be very likely to prevail in a lower court. In fact I would encourage anyone moving into a red town with an unrestricted LTC to expect it to be unrestricted upon renewal - especially if you've lived in that town for a number of years with an unrestricted LTC already. This is really a slam dunk.

This question, however, will be obviated by one or two good right-to-carry wins. There are several in the Federal courts right now and I'm optimistic that the right-to-carry question will be large resolved before we'll have a good chance to get in a federal pissing match with a chief over imposing restrictions on someone who was previously unrestricted.

If I read you correctly, then an LTC-A Unrestricted should be good anywhere, upon renewal and can not be downgraded unless the applicant does something to jeopardize his LTC suitability . Do we know that to be the case in every instance?

 

[Len-2A Training]

If I read you correctly, then an LTC-A Unrestricted should be good anywhere, upon renewal and can not be downgraded unless the applicant does something to jeopardize his LTC suitability . Do we know that to be the case in every instance?

First part is correct, second part is absolutely WRONG.

Every renewal is basically the same as an initial application (except no proof of training or prints on renewals) . . . the chief at that time/location decides what he'll issue (if anything) regardless of the applicant's spotless record.

 

[yanici]

First part is correct, second part is absolutely WRONG.

Every renewal is basically the same as an initial application (except no proof of training or prints on renewals) . . . the chief at that time/location decides what he'll issue (if anything) regardless of the applicant's spotless record.

Looks like diametrically opposing statements between you, LenS, and Knuckledragger. I respect both of your opinions and knowledge in this area. I feel that you, LenS, are more correct but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Absolute bullshit

Its not absolute bullshit.......people carry all the time without any license.

You think any of the hundreds of gangbangers have an LTC in their pocket?

This fact that is pointed out is by itself grounds to completely eliminate all licensing.

Note: If push comes to shove, I'll carry without a license too....no cop, chief of police or f***ing ivory tower politician holds a higher claim on my life and safety than I do.

 

[M1911]

Looks like diametrically opposing statements between you, LenS, and Knuckledragger. I respect both of your opinions and knowledge in this area. I feel that you, LenS, are more correct but I hope I am wrong.

The law in MA has not changed. The article written by Chief Glidden is not binding on any chief -- it is just Glidden's recommendations that they are free to take or ignore. In MA, police chiefs have almost total discretion when it comes to issuing an LTC. They can issue it, or not. They can put any restrictions on it that they desire, or not. They can decide you are unsuitable when you renew, and you have an uphill legal battle if you try to fight it.

Future federal court decisions may eventually change this, but at the moment nothing has changed.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Looks like diametrically opposing statements between you, LenS, and Knuckledragger. I respect both of your opinions and knowledge in this area. I feel that you, LenS, are more correct but I hope I am wrong.

I'll give you an example . . .

People who lived in Quincy and had LTC-A unrestricted for years ran into a chief who unilaterally decided that NOBODY needed to carry in Quincy and upon renewal (some had moved into Quincy and others had lived there for years) were given only restricted (to no CCW) permits. Don Kusser (GOAL BOD member and BR&P VP) got involved, helped get a new Mayor (pro-gun) elected and that Mayor (Koch) gave the chief marching orders. The chief "chose" to retire early and a new, more moderate chief was appointed to replace him. The new chief will issue unrestricted to anyone >25 yo . . . still arbitrary, but much better than before.

"Suitability" and "Discretion" are per MGLs 100% up to the chief . . . each time you go to renew/apply.

 

[yanici]

Yeah, that's the way I figured it is. You move, you lose, if you go to a Red town. Next time up, you may get knocked down to the good ol' T&H license or if you're lucky the COP will let you keep your Unrestricted. Nothing has changed.

 

[M1911]

Yeah, that's the way I figured it is. You move, you lose, if you go to a Red town. Next time up, you may get knocked down to the good ol' T&H license or if you're lucky the COP will let you keep your Unrestricted. Nothing has changed.

None of the federal court decisions have directly addressed carrying concealed, so I'm confused as to why you might have thought that has changed.

 

[terraformer]

None of the federal court decisions have directly addressed carrying concealed, so I'm confused as to why you might have thought that has changed.

Sort of not true. Chicago responded to Macdonald in a way that forced the court, in it's decision and NOT just in dicta, to have to deal with the bear portion of the RKBA. Basically they challenged the court and said something to the effect of, "well if you are going to say this is a fundamental right you must expect it's OK everyone to be walking around town with a gun." (I suspect DC thought this would cause the Justices to backpedal) Well, alito hit that for a homer and this is where we get the introduction of the concept that although the states may regulate the where and in what manner, the right to bear is also a protected right. I will spend a few minutes digging up quotes and get back to you with whatever I find, but trust me Alan Gura sees it this way.

That said, this is not an obvious aspect of Macdonald so expect the court to demand lower courts who rule contrary to that reconsider without actually hearing the cases outright. A few of these and the lower courts will get the picture.

 

[terraformer]

Here's the most important part.

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recog- nized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our hold- ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov- ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali- fications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

It is written in the negative (ie; what can be prohibited) but if you simply read it in the reverse, the right to KEEP and BEAR arms is fundamental and can't be wholesale restricted. That pursuant to some level of scrutiny, there must be a way for the lawful citizen to be able to bear this defensive instrument, among other activities allowed. By focusing on the negative, it made it clear the negative things here was a smaller list than the positive things one could do. So schools and government buildings, but does the local walmart qualify? How about interstates, or side roads? Or sidewalks? See, none of those things really rises to the "importance" and sensitivity of schools and govt. buildings.

 

[M1911]

I don't understand why this is so hard for me to explain. SCOTUS did not come out and say "discretionary concealed carry permits are unconstitutional." As a result, RIGHT NOW, MA gun law remains as is.

When the Boston PD licensing officer hands you a restricted LTC-A, if you tell him that is unconstitutional, he'll laugh at you. If you appeal it, the MA judge probably won't laugh at your lawyer, but he probably won't offer any relief, either.

Have the Heller and MacDonald decisions laid the groundwork that may someday bring down discretionary concealed carry permits? Maybe, but we're nowhere near that yet.

RIGHT NOW, discretionary concealed carry licensing remains in effect in MA and in other states (e.g., NY) as well. Might future appellate court decisions change that? Sure, but don't hold your breath -- we've got a long road to get there.

 

[Garys]

While his angles are somewhat positive to the issuance of class As, I feel that this entire article was unfortunately written under the color of the COPs keeping their discretion intact- this is a message to the chiefs- "don't screw it up, or they'll take away our authority altogether."

That was exactly the intent, it would seem. However, I predict that like most organizations that are told that if they don't clean up their act the politicians will, they'll ignore that advice.

I don't understand why this is so hard for me to explain. SCOTUS did not come out and say "discretionary concealed carry permits are unconstitutional." As a result, RIGHT NOW, MA gun law remains as is.

When the Boston PD licensing officer hands you a restricted LTC-A, if you tell him that is unconstitutional, he'll laugh at you. If you appeal it, the MA judge probably won't laugh at your lawyer, but he probably won't offer any relief, either.

Have the Heller and MacDonald decisions laid the groundwork that may someday bring down discretionary concealed carry permits? Maybe, but we're nowhere near that yet.

RIGHT NOW, discretionary concealed carry licensing remains in effect in MA and in other states (e.g., NY) as well. Might future appellate court decisions change that? Sure, but don't hold your breath -- we've got a long road to get there.

I don't think that the road is all that long. The plaintiff's in these cases seem to have a road map that they are following. Neither Heller nor McDonald directly effect MA, because the storage laws are not as draconian as DC's and even Boston issues some LTCs. It will take a few more favorable decisions before anything starts to effect "may issue" states. I think it will happen, but it will likely be about five years given the pace of the justice system. OTOH, that could change if Obama gets to replace a judge that respects the Constitution with one that believes in that "living, breathing, document" crap.

 

[Titan]

I don't see MCOPA being able to 'reform' itself internally. Too many egos involved, too much like herding cats.

Agreed.

Their whole approach begins with the flawed objective of insuring that COP retain their 'discretion regarding licensing'. WRONG!

 

[M1911]

I don't think that the road is all that long. The plaintiff's in these cases seem to have a road map that they are following. Neither Heller nor McDonald directly effect MA, because the storage laws are not as draconian as DC's and even Boston issues some LTCs. It will take a few more favorable decisions before anything starts to effect "may issue" states. I think it will happen, but it will likely be about five years given the pace of the justice system. OTOH, that could change if Obama gets to replace a judge that respects the Constitution with one that believes in that "living, breathing, document" crap.

I agree that 1) it is a matter of years and 2) we only won Heller and MacDonald by 5-4, so if Obama can replace a conservative judge then all bets are off.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

. Neither Heller nor McDonald directly effect MA, because the storage laws are not as draconian as DC's and even Boston issues some LTCs. It will take a few more favorable decisions before anything starts to effect "may issue" states.

The opportunity created by Heller and McDonald is one of due process, as the LTC is required to even possess a handgun. If something is a right, the courts tend not to accept the premise that one can be stripped of that right for items like exercising another right (for example, remaining silent when questioned); being found not guilty; or being arrested but having the charges dropped. Any Heller based challenge that concentrates on those issues would be on solid footing. Using Heller/MdDonald to argue the restriction issue would be a more ambitious undertaking.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

If I read you correctly, then an LTC-A Unrestricted should be good anywhere, and upon renewal and can not be downgraded unless the applicant does something to jeopardize his LTC suitability . Do we know that to be the case in every instance?

What I mean to say is this: If someone moves into town A with an unrestricted permit, lives there for several years with an unrestricted permit, upon renewal, how can they no longer be considered to have a 'proper purpose' to carry a firearm just by virtue of the fact that their LTC has expired? Think about it. They were perfectly proper proper living in town A with no restrictions and that only changed because their license expired and they happened to be living in a different town at the time.

This is a key point in current right-to-carry litigation. How does a mere change of address make someone less entitled or proper or whatever to carry firearms?????? The case in MA is only strengthened because MA does NOT cancel and reissue when you move. It be a little harder case to make if every local issuing authority had the final say over everyone living in their jurisdiction. But now you have a clear equal protection claim and probably due process claim.

I really think that anyone challenging the imposition of restrictions upon renewal of a previously unrestricted license, especially if that person lived in the new town for a period of time, could easily win if they argued the correct case.

ETA: I don't believe the views expressed by LenS and myself are diametrically opposed. I believe they come from different perspectives. LenS (I believe) is looking at precedent and the historical record. I, on the other hand, am looking forward at the potential created by Heller/McDonald to bring due process and equal protection into the equation.

Most objectionable gun laws are really vulnerable on one point, and this is especially true after Heller/McDonald - they fail the tests of due process and equal protection. Sure, we do not yet have a right-to-carry decision in any federal court - although I think that this will be solved in 2-4 years (conservatively). Still, the discretionary issuing of carry permits can be counted on to fail these tests.

 

[yanici]

Thanks for the clarification. I like your optimism. It will be a big day for us in MA when the right to bear is a reality for us all.

 

[cekim]

Agreed.

Their whole approach begins with the flawed objective of insuring that COP retain their 'discretion regarding licensing'. WRONG!

Yes, I firmly believe they will lose this in the courts...

I just wish they could save everyone the trouble and stop trying to cling to this unconstitutional power...

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Cee-Lo Green has the response I am looking for for this snippet:

As a result of that meeting, the Association will propose language to counter H2259 that
will improve standardization, simplify licensing and maintain a chief’s discretion.

"Fvck you"

 

[cekim]

Cee-Lo Green has the response I am looking for for this snippet:

"Fvck you"

Yes, this was pretty much their proposed language... BTW, I don't think the PDF posted is recent. MCOPAs campaign to reign in CLEOs out of fear of 2259 and similar approaches has been ongoing for a while. This is just one of many expressions of their desperation.

It all comes down to the basic problem that they are part of the executive branch having been assigned a task that at best is the responsibility of the judicial branch (i.e. finding of law - you are "unsuitable").

They tried to hide behind a tortured interpretation of 2A and MA's state constitutional equivalent which also guarantees RKBA, but there is a VERY good reason that generally speaking the police are not permitted to make findings of law. They cannot be objective. They cannot detach. The whole reason we separate these powers is so that the officer that wrestles you to the ground is not involved in deciding ultimately if you are in fact guilty. The courts are given this task and they intentionally remain detached from enforcement...

It is not surprising that despite often good intentions CLEOs have overstepped their bounds. They were doomed to this result when they were asked to take on this task. They see licenses and "putting guns in the hands of the public" which will "be pointed at my officers."

This is a patently false assumption that bears no resemblance to reality, but you can understand how they come to this conclusion given what they face out there...

The reality of course is that the people they are giving a license don't really factor into the guns they see "pointed at their officers." Because, as we know, criminals don't obey the law... That's why we call them criminals...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It all comes down to the basic problem that they are part of the executive branch having been assigned a task that at best is the responsibility of the judicial branch (i.e. finding of law - you are "unsuitable").

It can even get messed up when the judicial branch handles it. In NY (not counting NYC which is a separate jurisdiction), the licensing authoriity is the county court judge (a couple of counties near NYC may be a bit different here). Instead of having "green" and "red" towns, NY has green and red counties. In some counties, everyone gets an unrestricted permit. In others, permits are restricted unless you are a person of privilege, power and influence. Since NY requires each gun be listed on the permit, some counties limit the number you have, and others make it difficult or impossible for one gun to be on the permit of multiple household members. Some counties require a "showing of need" for any sort of license, even a restricted one.

So don't assume that shifting the decision authority to the judiciary will necessarily change the fundamental nature of "may issue"; showing of need; and discretionary licensing.

Standardization is another concept that does not necessarily result in a better situation - just look at Maryland where only persons of "special need" can get a carry permit - but the process is standardized for all applicants across the state.

 

[terraformer]

Oh, let me play. I want to pile on. It can even get screwed up when the legislature controls it. Let's face it, they created this mess of discretionary licensing in the first place.