Everyone should focus on this section of the proposed new licensing laws, specifically (vii)
SECTION XX. Said subsection (d) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out clauses (vii) through (x), inclusive, and inserting in place thereof the following clauses: -
(vii) poses a risk of danger to their self or others by having in their control, ownership or possession a weapon, feeding device or ammunition;
(viii) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction;
(ix) has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions;
(x) is a fugitive from justice; or
(xi) having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced that citizenship.
The proposed changes to subsection d are changes to statutory disqualifiers that historically have been separate and distinct from the definition MA used for suitability, which is also included at the end of subsection d and which remains relatively unchanged except for a sentence with the word "discretion" in it.
Note that the change above removes four clauses, but adds an extra one, clause (vii). Read that carefully to see what is happening here. That sentence is about as broad as can be. If you think it sounds like a form of suitability you are correct. It is no different than how suitability is already ill defined. Suitability standards are specifically designed to keep firearms out of the hands of an applicants that "poses a risk of danger to their self or others", therefore, it is by all manners of logic, a suitability clause. There is no definition of what "poses a risk of danger" means, or, how it is determined. It is as wide open as the southern border!
The language around suitability changes slightly to exclude the phrase with "discretion" present:
The current language is as follows:
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. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on:
It will now read:
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 the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on:
This is a defensive tactic to try and shield "suitability" from future lawsuits correctly claiming that such a scheme is discretionary and thus not allowed under Bruen.
The more important point is that clause (vii) has now been added to the traditional list of objective and discreet statutory disqualifiers in a brazen attempt to keep that unconstitutional provision as insulated as possible from the inevitable future attack on suitability broadly.
I would love to see Comm2A, GOAL, or whatever group is responding to this fockery, highlight this point emphatically and repeatedly. Let these faggots know, that we know, exactly what they are doing. They know suitability is going down sooner or later, but by adding this new incredibly vague and open ended clause in this subsection, they think they can circumvent the inevitable.
Well, I shall think not.