NYSPA v Bruen — MA LTC law

[Texasgrillchef]

The MA law on issuing a LTC in MA is quite a bit different then how NY’s law is written. Even for several of the other “May Issue” who have similar laws to NY’s that clearly state a person must show cause as to why they need a LTC. As I read MA law, it doesn’t fully require one to show cause to get a unrestricted LTC. Or am I missing something?

Obviously, I know a lot depends on how SCOTUS writes their opinion of course. I just wonder how MA law would be changed with a positive outcome of this case. Hawaii, California
NJ and Maryland, and Obviously New York will that to make some changes to their laws. I just wonder how it would change laws for MA. Even for DE.

If the opinion is written that one doesn’t need to show good cause, how would that change MA issuing LTC’s?

 

[greencobra]

If the opinion is written that one doesn’t need to show good cause, how would that change MA issuing LTC’s?

i would say not one bit. aren't states free to make their own laws regarding this?

 

[Mtn_Guy]

Do you really think a SCOTUS ruling will influence the local CLEO from their interpretation?

 

[AHM]

Do you really think a SCOTUS ruling will influence the local CLEO from their interpretation?

I think that a favorable SCOTUS ruling, if properly phrased,
will establish the case law that subjective schemes like "suitability"
do not meet the requisite level of scrutiny for regulation of a fundamental civil right.

The worst case is that the state doesn't bow to the supreme law of the land,
and it takes Yet Another SCOTUS Case to smack down the whole scheme in Mass.
(The worst worst case is that SCOTUS doesn't take the case, or gets it wrong).

But the last time Mass ignored a SCOTUS ruling (Caetano),
they were smacked down 9-0 in a per-curiam decision.
And the current court sits to the right of the Caetano court.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

i would say not one bit. aren't states free to make their own laws regarding this?

Not if it violates the 2nd amendment. No one should have to have a reason to have a LTC other then it’s ,y god given constitutional right.

 

[greencobra]

...other then it’s ,y god given constitutional right.

still on the quest to find out when god gave it to us. i'm stubborn that way.

 

[Picton]

should

I've said this before on here: when having realistic discussions of gun laws in general and MA gun laws in particular, this "should" thing is a hangup you've GOT to get over.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

If scotus rules that it's constitutionally legal to carry a handgun out side of the home whether concealed or open carried then wouldn't all licensing schemes be on the chopping block?

 

[Picton]

If scotus rules that it's constitutionally legal to carry a handgun out side of the home whether concealed or open carried then wouldn't all licensing schemes be on the chopping block?

I'd like to think so, but in MA you don't just need a license to carry; you need one to buy or possess.

I could see this ending or curtailing RESTRICTIONS on your license, sure. But if the state still wants to regulate possession (unconstitutionally, IMO), they'll still do that through a license. At best, I figure it would prevent towns from restricting LTCs. MA might become close to a shall-issue state, de facto, but at that point the state might just raise the application fee to $300 or so in order to provide a more robust barrier against people putting in for them. Add a live-fire component and, perhaps, a state-mandated proficiency test, and we might be in worse shape than we are now.

 

[drgrant]

The MA law on issuing a LTC in MA is quite a bit different then how NY’s law is written. Even for several of the other “May Issue” who have similar laws to NY’s that clearly state a person must show cause as to why they need a LTC. As I read MA law, it doesn’t fully require one to show cause to get a unrestricted LTC. Or am I missing something?

Obviously, I know a lot depends on how SCOTUS writes their opinion of course. I just wonder how MA law would be changed with a positive outcome of this case. Hawaii, California
NJ and Maryland, and Obviously New York will that to make some changes to their laws. I just wonder how it would change laws for MA. Even for DE.

If the opinion is written that one doesn’t need to show good cause, how would that change MA issuing LTC’s?

Lol fat chance of anything happening absent a case in MA somehow based off that decision. I'm sure Comm2A is already working on it if the possibility arises..... even with a supreme court decision most of the trash states won't change until they get brought to court over it. The worse states are far more likely to see rapid action than mass is.

 

[Waher]

MA ignored Caetano V. Massachusetts and ignores Heller about simple possession in the home & 'safe storage'.

You really think MA will listen to SCotUS when it has ignored the last 2A ruling that state was the defendant in? It wouldn't surprise me if the state revoked/expired every LTC/FID and made every permit holder reapply as if it were a new application following a ruling. Only the state wouldn't process the applications to draw things out for years in litigation.

And why are you so obsessed with MA law when you don't live and haven't even visited the Commonwealth? It seems to be the only subject you ever post about.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I'd like to think so, but in MA you don't just need a license to carry; you need one to buy or possess.

I could see this ending or curtailing RESTRICTIONS on your license, sure. But if the state still wants to regulate possession (unconstitutionally, IMO), they'll still do that through a license. At best, I figure it would prevent towns from restricting LTCs. MA might become close to a shall-issue state, de facto, but at that point the state might just raise the application fee to $300 or so in order to provide a more robust barrier against people putting in for them. Add a live-fire component and, perhaps, a state-mandated proficiency test, and we might be in worse shape than we are now.

I have 9 total LTC’s from 9 different states. Texas, & Illinois and Utah all required a state specific course. TX and IL required live fire qualification. 5 others required the NRA Basic Pistol class which includes live fire. However all 9 are from shall issue states.

FYI, Illinois non-resident CCL fee is $300, Residents $150. Texas is $40 the cheapest of all the LTC’s. Texas will probably go free for residents in 2023.

So if MA decides to require training and live fire qualification I wouldn’t be surprised. Hopefully though they will accept the NRA Basic Pistol class. Or at least allow some form of out of state training and qualification.

While I live in Texas. I am qualified and certified to teach th Illinois CCL class, as well as certified to teach and qualify For Maryland LTC’s. Both can be taught outside of th state. Sadly though I can teach a Texas LTC class ONLY in Texas. Texas law does not allow the class or the qualification to be done outside the state. We are going to try and change that in 2023. I would like to teach Texas LTC classes outside of Texas. I am Also a NRA certified Instructor as well.

Personally if MA would accept the fact I am an instructor in lieu of additional training to get a MA LTC I wouldn’t have a problem, I would also be willing to pay $300 for the LTC. I did for Illinois. I wouldn’t be happy about paying that much. But sadly I would.

Hopefully someday we will finally get national reciprocity, or have national Permitless carry.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

MA ignored Caetano V. Massachusetts and ignores Heller about simple possession in the home & 'safe storage'.

You really think MA will listen to SCotUS when it has ignored the last 2A ruling that state was the defendant in? It wouldn't surprise me if the state revoked/expired every LTC/FID and made every permit holder reapply as if it were a new application following a ruling. Only the state wouldn't process the applications to draw things out for years in litigation.

And why are you so obsessed with MA law when you don't live and haven't even visited the Commonwealth? It seems to be the only subject you ever post about.

I Frequently travel. I spend about 9 months of the year traveling. I would like to travel to MA as well as the other states that have a “may issue” scheme and doesn’t have any form of reciprocity. I would prefer to remain Legal and be able to protect my family at the same time.

I also like to keep myself educated on the various states that are the most restrictive and/or violate 2A rights the most.

Hopefully SCOTUS will grant A hearing for magazine bans, AWB’s, bump stocks, and pistol braces soon. Sadly one of those cases wif It is accepted won’t be heard based on constitutional status in relation to the 2A, but on the issue of Chevron Indifference. So even if we win that case, it won’t preclude a state from banning such items, or even congress from doing so as well. It was with Bump stocks I believe. If a state or our congress does, I am sure it will be litigated again.

 

[MisterHappy]

Personally if MA would accept the fact I am an instructor in lieu of additional training to get a MA LTC I wouldn’t have a problem, I would also be willing to pay $300 for the LTC. I did for Illinois. I wouldn’t be happy about paying that much. But sadly I would.

Hopefully someday we will finally get national reciprocity, or have national Permitless carry.

Hell, my kid was an NRA Instructor at 13, helping to teach the NRA courses in Mass. Local PD would not accept HIS Instructor cert., for FID issuance - he had to use his Hunter Ed card, which has no live fire. Later, for LTC issuance, he used his ,mil ID, which requires no familiarity, instruction or training with Mass laws.

Don't expect DPRM to be sensible.

 

[LTCRN]

In the grand SCHEME of things, every state should not have license requirements and you should have more rights to own, carry, and purchase firearms than owning and driving a motor vehicle, which is a licensed privilege. None of the other Bill of Rights in this country require licenses, cause an individual to prove a reason to be allowed to, beg, bow down, or know somebody in order to exercise them.

 

[Picton]

In the grand SCHEME of things, every state should not have license requirements and you should have more rights to own, carry, and purchase firearms than owning and driving a motor vehicle, which is a licensed privilege. None of the other Bill of Rights in this country require licenses, cause an individual to prove a reason to be allowed to, beg, bow down, or know somebody in order to exercise them.

See Post #7.

You're right, but your argument is not going to work in this state.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

What happens next in Massachusetts is entirely dependent upon what kind of opinion SCOTUS issues and what follow on cases challenge Massachusetts law. It's important to go back to the QP on which cert was granted: "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

SCOTUS is going to answer 'yes'. But then what? I think they'll remand for another go-around. It really all depends upon how strongly they take issue with the subjective 'proper cause' requirement. In most ways, New York isn't all that different from Massachusetts in that local licensing authorities have the say on what constitutes a 'proper cause'. Concealed carry licenses aren't that hard to get in some NY counties. We have the additional subjective requirement of 'suitable person' though. I hope that SCOTUS will address subjective requirements generally so that we'll be able to address both 'good reason' and suitability.

So what happens in Mass after NYSRPA? Some licensing authorities might change their view on what constitutes a 'good reason'. The Commonwealth, when challenged, will try to make a distinction between NY's 'proper cause' requirement and the 'good reason' requirement in MA law. And they'll do it with a straight face. "Yes, we realized that NY's 'proper cause' requirement was unconstitutional your honor, but 'good reason' is very different and is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in NYSRPA." That's exactly what they'll say.

If scotus rules that it's constitutionally legal to carry a handgun out side of the home whether concealed or open carried then wouldn't all licensing schemes be on the chopping block?

No. A licensing requirement on it's face is not going to be found to be unconstitutional. As long as the requirement is objective and reasonable, no court is going to through out most 'shall issue' licensing schemes. What will be found unconstitutional is making the requirement for that license subjective in a way that's left to the discretion of a public official. I'm also hoping that future challenges will also take down licensing schemes that are unreasonable, unfair, or impose an undue burden on the applicant. But that's likely to be a ways off.

You can expect a win here and follow on litigation in the 'may issue' states. But I think past that, the federal judiciary will continue to drag their collective heels on Second Amendment challenges.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

What happens next in Massachusetts is entirely dependent upon what kind of opinion SCOTUS issues and what follow on cases challenge Massachusetts law. It's important to go back to the QP on which cert was granted: "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

SCOTUS is going to answer 'yes'. But then what? I think they'll remand for another go-around. It really all depends upon how strongly they take issue with the subjective 'proper cause' requirement. In most ways, New York isn't all that different from Massachusetts in that local licensing authorities have the say on what constitutes a 'proper cause'. Concealed carry licenses aren't that hard to get in some NY counties. We have the additional subjective requirement of 'suitable person' though. I hope that SCOTUS will address subjective requirements generally so that we'll be able to address both 'good reason' and suitability.

So what happens in Mass after NYSRPA? Some licensing authorities might change their view on what constitutes a 'good reason'. The Commonwealth, when challenged, will try to make a distinction between NY's 'proper cause' requirement and the 'good reason' requirement in MA law. And they'll do it with a straight face. "Yes, we realized that NY's 'proper cause' requirement was unconstitutional your honor, but 'good reason' is very different and is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in NYSRPA." That's exactly what they'll say.


No. A licensing requirement on it's face is not going to be found to be unconstitutional. As long as the requirement is objective and reasonable, no court is going to through out most 'shall issue' licensing schemes. What will be found unconstitutional is making the requirement for that license subjective in a way that's left to the discretion of a public official. I'm also hoping that future challenges will also take down licensing schemes that are unreasonable, unfair, or impose an undue burden on the applicant. But that's likely to be a ways off.

You can expect a win here and follow on litigation in the 'may issue' states. But I think past that, the federal judiciary will continue to drag their collective heels on Second Amendment challenges.

Wasn't there an issue where NY was preventing people from carrying weapons in public for example to go to a second home. Does it all come down to a permit? Or will there be a ruling that says 2A doesn't just mean a shotgun inside the home but in public permits are still required?

 

[Garys]

I know you know that the federal courts have treated the Second Amendment as a second class Civil Right. If nothing else, maybe a favorable decision from SCOTUS will change that. Or maybe not.

The Second Amendment is clearly a child of a lesser God.

You can expect a win here and follow on litigation in the 'may issue' states. But I think past that, the federal judiciary will continue to drag their collective heels on Second Amendment challenges.

 

[Garys]

I travel frequently, mostly to the south. That includes Texas for the purposes of this thread. With MA, NH, and PA LTCs, as well as Constitutional Carry and states that accept all permits, I'm covered in most of the areas where I go. Ironically, FL and SC are exceptions.

Despite being an NRA instructor, SC required me to take a course which included live fire before I could apply for a permit. Which I still can't do because SC will only issue non resident permits to residents of contiguous states OR who own property in SC.

Other than those two, in general once you hit PA heading south, the laws are much more friendly. Well, except in MD, which still sucks.

As you note, it's important to know the laws in other states if you travel.

I Frequently travel. I spend about 9 months of the year traveling. I would like to travel to MA as well as the other states that have a “may issue” scheme and doesn’t have any form of reciprocity. I would prefer to remain Legal and be able to protect my family at the same time.

I also like to keep myself educated on the various states that are the most restrictive and/or violate 2A rights the most.

 

[AHM]

... SC will only issue non resident permits to residents of contiguous states OR who own property in SC.

And so Mass. residents are screwed because of
Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and the Elizabeths...

Time to sell them to Rhode Island and unify the state?
(May need to fill in the Cape Cod Canal, though).

 

[Garys]

Contiguous to SC, funny man.

And so Mass. residents are screwed because of
Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and the Elizabeths...

Time to sell them to Rhode Island and unify the state?
(May need to fill in the Cape Cod Canal, though).

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Wasn't there an issue where NY was preventing people from carrying weapons in public for example to go to a second home. Does it all come down to a permit? Or will there be a ruling that says 2A doesn't just mean a shotgun inside the home but in public permits are still required?

No, it comes down to how the permit operates. If all you have to do is sign your name and get a permit, there's no problem - at least that's where the courts will be. If permits are unavailable to most or have unreasonable restriction, then we have problems.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

No, it comes down to how the permit operates. If all you have to do is sign your name and get a permit, there's no problem - at least that's where the courts will be. If permits are unavailable to most or have unreasonable restriction, then we have problems.

So it sounds like New York City will be able to continue to have a permit to own and a permit to carry. The permit to carry won't have any restrictions. I wonder if by carry that means only handguns or would it be all bearable arms (including rifles and shotguns). If not then I'm assuming that would be a 3rd permit. Sounds like a lot of tax revenue to collect in order to engage in a civil right.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So it sounds like New York City will be able to continue to have a permit to own and a permit to carry. The permit to carry won't have any restrictions. I wonder if by carry that means only handguns or would it be all bearable arms (including rifles and shotguns). If not then I'm assuming that would be a 3rd permit. Sounds like a lot of tax revenue to collect in order to engage in a civil right.

Correct. SCOTUS will likily say something like the Second Amendment extends outside the home and that a generalized desire for self defense is 'proper cause'.

I fully expect however, that NY will still try to limit as much as possible who can get that license and even perhaps what people can carry and where.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Correct. SCOTUS will likily say something like the Second Amendment extends outside the home and that a generalized desire for self defense is 'proper cause'.

I fully expect however, that NY will still try to limit as much as possible who can get that license and even perhaps what people can carry and where.

So sounds like a victory in this case is of minimal value. It’s just fuel for other lawsuits. Thanks for bursting my bubble

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Great write up on SCOTUSBlog:

In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public​

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The MA law on issuing a LTC in MA is quite a bit different then how NY’s law is written. Even for several of the other “May Issue” who have similar laws to NY’s that clearly state a person must show cause as to why they need a LTC. As I read MA law, it doesn’t fully require one to show cause to get a unrestricted LTC. Or am I missing something?

Correct. MA law merely requires that the issuing authority does deem additional restrictions appropriate.

 

[n1bsbri]

Great write up on SCOTUSBlog:

In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public​

but if the justices side with the challengers, their decision could jeopardize gun-control laws in other states and cities across the country.

That's what you might call biased reporting, using the word jeopardize. I would choose a different word, like maybe repudiate.

 

[not new guy]

More Turley

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

This is actually the second time in two years that the New York State Rifle Association has come knocking on the door of the Supreme Court. The Association previously challenged a New York law that imposed stringent conditions on the ability of gun owners to even transport their guns outside of their homes. The law was viewed by some of us as unconstitutional under existing case law, but New York politicians insisted that it would be defended all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, when the Court called their bluff and accepted the case, those politicians quickly changed the law and pulled the case before the Court could rule.

The bait-and-switch incensed members of the Court who delayed in the dismissal of the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for “manipulating” the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the condemnation and added menacingly that “some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

They ultimately did precisely that and took another case by the very same plaintiffs: the New York State Rifle Association.

The current court membership is arguably the strongest Second Amendment bench in decades. That includes Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong defense of the Second Amendment defense as an appellate judge. While it is always dangerous to predict outcomes before the Court, this case was accepted with a likely intent to reverse the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which also upheld the earlier restrictive law).

With lower courts chipping away at its prior precedent, the Court seems poised to push back with a case that brings greater clarity and support for the right to bear guns in public.