MA Gun Grab 2024: Senate bill S.2572

[Token_Black_Guy]

We're frucked, our only hope is the courts afterwards, which will likely take years before any final decision. We'll all be felons in waiting until then, and likely afterwards. If you're young, get the F out of MA and make a life elsewhere (and not just because of gunz).

Don't comply

 

[chris_1001]

I mean, will they go door to door to confiscate AR's?

Not if it’s grandfathered…

(I’m shit posting here as we still have no f***ing idea what this will become, chill, relax and we will see).

(Just hide your dog to be safe)

 

[pastera]

“So many” is a bit of a stretch. What other handgun roster cases are out there? I can only think of 2, Renna v. Bonta & Boland v. Bonta out of CA. Those cases also just got delayed by the 9th Circuit pending the en banc panel’s decision in Duncan v. Bonta.

It's not just roster cases - an AWB case is very well positioned to kill off rosters in addition to cosmetic feature bans.

 

[Reptile]

Not if it’s grandfathered…

(I’m shit posting here as we still have no f***ing idea what this will become, chill, relax and we will see).

(Just hide your dog to be safe)

If it's NOT grandfathers - they need to tell us what they are going to do about it.

If they don't say how they'd enforce the law - it's BS and nobody should comply.

The penalty is a SPANKING!!!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUqBR6S4i5g

 

[Horatio_Alger_Jr]

I mean, will they go door to door to confiscate AR's?

How are new gun owners supposed to get them if they can not be sold or transfered? They can't confiscate something you can not get.

 

[Picton]

I mean, will they go door to door to confiscate AR's?

Dude.

Of course not.

 

[chris_1001]

If it's NOT grandfathers - they need to tell us what they are going to do about it.

If they don't say how they'd enforce the law - it's BS and nobody should comply.

You are jumping so far ahead. We do not know.

It will be revealed soon. Not now, but…

 

[chris_1001]

How are new gun owners supposed to get them if they can not be sold or transfered? They can't confiscate something you can not get.

Wut?

No AR for you. You missed out. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Matt_SERE]

I mean, will they go door to door to confiscate AR's?

No, each, and every, range in MA is going to get its own .gov Range Officer. One of his main duties will be to notify the proper authorities of any 'cuz gunz' that have been used at the range. The officer will meet you at the end of the driveway and have a 'knock and talk' equivalent vehicle stop.

 

[chris_1001]

No, each, and every, range in MA is going to get its own .gov Range Officer. One of his main duties will be to notify the proper authorities of any 'cuz gunz' that have been used at the range. The officer will meet you at the end of the driveway and have a 'knock and talk' equivalent vehicle stop.

Don’t feed the reptile!

 

[Joeldiaz]

It's not just roster cases - an AWB case is very well positioned to kill off rosters in addition to cosmetic feature bans.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, this is the same kind of (correct) logic that should have killed Suitability in MA post-Bruen, but didn’t. SCOTUS is going to have to rule definitely on a roster case for it to go away.

 

[Thirwell1216]

Good luck tomorrow....The morons in charge will attempt to ram anything through in the name of "safety".....


View: https://youtu.be/BToITJ8IH3U

 

[Reptile]

Good luck tomorrow....The morons in charge will attempt to ram anything through in the name of "safety".....


View: https://youtu.be/BToITJ8IH3U

They said they will take it up on Thursday.

I thought they said Wednesday?

 

[vcman]

I mean, will they go door to door to confiscate AR's?

Yes,give me all your AR, I'll hide em4 ya

 

[Horatio_Alger_Jr]

Wut?

No AR for you. You missed out. Too bad, so sad.

Yes, which is why I am saying this is not like the edict and has teeth. People that are just getting their license or are not old enough yet are screwed.

 

[pastera]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, this is the same kind of (correct) logic that should have killed Suitability in MA post-Bruen, but didn’t. SCOTUS is going to have to rule definitely on a roster case for it to go away.

Where is suitability being applied in Mass?
I am not saying that just because an AWB case is taking up that rosters immediately fall - I'm saying that the dicta in an AWB case would likely directly apply to roster cases, especially ones where pistols differing only in cosmetic changes need to be independently approved for sale.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Where is suitability being applied in Mass?

AGO put out guidance to all licensing authorities that suitability remains unaffected by Bruen. https://www.mass.gov/doc/ago-eopss-ltc-guidance/download (PDF warning)

“Licensing authorities should continue to enforce the ‘prohibited person’ and ‘suitability’ provisions of the license-to-carry statute. These aspects of the statute are unaffected by Bruen.”

Go search through this forum and Reddit and you can still find examples of licensing authorities denying people LTCs based on suitability.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I am not saying that just because an AWB case is taking up that rosters immediately fall - I'm saying that the dicta in an AWB case would likely directly apply to roster cases, especially ones where pistols differing only in cosmetic changes need to be independently approved for sale.

Dicta is just that though, dicta. Extraneous statements or observations that are not part of the holding and thus not binding on the lower courts. Expect for it to be willfully ignored and have no effect on the outcome of the roster cases.

 

[pastera]

Yes, which is why I am saying this is not like the edict and has teeth. People that are just getting their license or are not old enough yet are screwed.

Going forward it will be hard to get pretty a lot of guns - we will need to rely on dual residents and people moving into Mass bringing off roster guns in.
However, there is no historical precedent for anything like a roster except a proofing bill for barrel makers - Mass can't argue that the roster requirements is analogous to requiring manufactures to proof test barrels before sale. And that one law in Mass does not create a historical tradition of restricting sales of firearms unless tested to a state's specific performance requirements.
What will survive is a law that allows the state to restrict sales of gun known to have safety issues like the SIG P320 (without the fixes) - that is a direct analogous fit with the proof testing of barrels (which were forge welded at the time and subject to a high failure rate unlike modern barrels that have statistically zero failures in the field with proper ammunition)

If the court makeup doesn't change, rosters as we know them will fall. The timeline seems as though AWB will be heard first but SCOTUS might consolidate since they are both basically a ban on classes of commonly held arms.

 

[pastera]

Dicta is just that though, dicta. Extraneous statements or observations that are not part of the holding and thus not binding on the lower courts. Expect for it to be willfully ignored and have no effect on the outcome of the roster cases.

Some dicta is applicable when it is the direct methodology that was used to create the holding - Yes, a court could ignore it but they would invite an immediate reversal.
Even Mass courts don't like reversals.

 

[pastera]

AGO put out guidance to all licensing authorities that suitability remains unaffected by Bruen. https://www.mass.gov/doc/ago-eopss-ltc-guidance/download (PDF warning)

“Licensing authorities should continue to enforce the ‘prohibited person’ and ‘suitability’ provisions of the license-to-carry statute. These aspects of the statute are unaffected by Bruen.”

Go search through this forum and Reddit and you can still find examples of licensing authorities denying people LTCs based on suitability.

The signal to noise in reddit is even lower than here - show an example of arbitrary use of suitability to deny an LTC where there isn't clear, objective evidence that the person was highly likely to be a public safety issue.

I'm not saying that it doesn't or hasn't happened, I'm saying that it isn't as widespread or arbitrary as it was pre-Bruen.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Some dicta is applicable when it is the direct methodology that was used to create the holding - Yes, a court could ignore it but they would invite an immediate reversal.
Even Mass courts don't like reversals.

I’m not so sure anti-2A courts are scared of reversals anymore as of late. Just look at Hawaii v. Wilson where the HI Supreme Court openly attacked and defied SCOTUS, even going so far as to say that Heller and Bruen were wrongly decided. Who’s to say other courts don’t become emboldened by this and follow suit? SCOTUS can’t take up every 2A case.

I think in theory you’re probably right overall, but the practical reality is that roster cases are not being resolved until SCOTUS directly rules on them.

 

[Joeldiaz]

SCOTUS might consolidate since they are both basically a ban on classes of commonly held arms.

I doubt that a roster case is going to go up to SCOTUS at the same time an AWB case does for them to consolidate. I’d predict that the AWB case gets heard and decided by SCOTUS first, then the anti-2A courts use that as an excuse to remand the cases back down in light of the decision in the SCOTUS AWB case.

 

[mikeboston]

District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional

On March 8, 2024, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman decided against a federal ban on gun ownership for illegal immigrant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The case at hand centered on Carbajal-Flores, who was “charged with possession of a firearm while illegally or unlawfully in the United...

www.northeastshooters.com

If an illegal immigrant applies for a LTC in MA and the person is denied would that violate that person’s constitutional rights? Or will they say the person is unsuitable because said person entered the country illegally.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I'm not saying that it doesn't or hasn't happened, I'm saying that it isn't as widespread or arbitrary as it was pre-Bruen.

That’s much different than your blanket question earlier asking where it happens in MA.

Also, I think it’s more widespread than you think. In addition to the AGO guidance, the state legislature codified suitability in the last legislative session post-Bruen. During one of the stops on the “listening tour” the special guest speaker was a police chief for a city on the cape, who made it a point to say that he has broad discretion to deny people LTCs based on suitability. Sounds to me like suitability is alive and well, thriving even.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

They said they will take it up on Thursday.

I thought they said Wednesday?

The clip is a month old.

 

[pastera]

I doubt that a roster case is going to go up to SCOTUS at the same time an AWB case does for them to consolidate. I’d predict that the AWB case gets heard and decided by SCOTUS first, then the anti-2A courts use that as an excuse to remand the cases back down in light of the decision in the SCOTUS AWB case.

Concur - that would be a viable delay tactic (that was already used in the 9th)

 

[pastera]

That’s much different than your blanket question earlier asking where it happens in MA.

Also, I think it’s more widespread than you think. In addition to the AGO guidance, the state legislature codified suitability in the last legislative session post-Bruen. During one of the stops on the “listening tour” the special guest speaker was a police chief for a city on the cape, who made it a point to say that he has broad discretion to deny people LTCs based on suitability. Sounds to me like suitability is alive and well, thriving even.

Like Healy's declaration what is said in public to scare off the uninformed is quite different than what would stand up in court.
Suitability does not have the historical record necessary to overcome TH&T - the courts know this and the anti's know this and that is why they pushed Rahimi to the SC in order to get a bad plaintiff to allow for bad case law (like Miller).
However the tone amongst the Justices in oral arguments kept creeping back towards dangerousness as a standard for prohibition.
Therefore, we may see a change in the standard for prohibition - And denial of licensure is a de facto prohibition.

The state knows that an open and subjective definition of who is suitable is not supportable therefore is not looking to push the issue on record unless the person is objectively "unsuitable" but not federally prohibited (drunkard, uncontrolled violent mental health issues, etc)

 

[440Sixpack]

I’m not so sure anti-2A courts are scared of reversals anymore as of late. Just look at Hawaii v. Wilson where the HI Supreme Court openly attacked and defied SCOTUS, even going so far as to say that Heller and Bruen were wrongly decided. Who’s to say other courts don’t become emboldened by this and follow suit? SCOTUS can’t take up every 2A case.

This is what concerns me the most about the Hawaii thing. I fully expect other courts to take this approach if Hawaii gets away with it.

And then, when the court eventually shifts liberal (which it will at some point, no matter what), and red states start doing the same thing and ignoring the liberal SC decisions, are all the blue states going to be cool with that, since they did it for what they felt was "right"? Or now, ignoring SCOTUS becomes a big issue for them?

 

[1903Collector]

And they ignore them and what can really be done about it? It's not like SCOTUS has and enforcement division. Until some of these mother f***ers start feeling some consequences, real consequences they'll do what they please.