One More Win - Hill v. New Bedford

Clearly we have "Shall Issue" now in this state. If applicants put "ALP" or equivalent in the reason for issue. Even if they don't in further case they should rule that even that question is (essentially) unConstitutional.

What amazes me is the leap from Simkin where the opinion discusses Arbitrary and Capricious as the main test, ruling that citizens in the Commonwealth becoming alarmed at the sight of a gun is not the responsibility of the licensed person, to this in such a short time frame. The decision doesn't cite Simkin.

Together, this means for all intents and purposes that Open Carrying and going about your business is now not likely to cost your license if you're willing to go to court over it. I assume that someone will start Open Carrying all the time and will be charged with Disturbing the Peace or some such which will eventually be thrown out.

If you Open Carry as a protest without even the pretense of going about your business, I expect that you'll be tried, found guilty of disturbing the peace and then that would be thrown out at the SJC.

Progress is good.

So. Anybody going to start open carrying on a daily basis? I don't and probably won't for strategic purposes, but I've been carrying "loosely concealed" for a long time anyway. Simkin just put my mind to ease about it.
 
Slow down and take it easy. Let's not go crazy out there. Better to keep a low profile and sneak up on them, them being the antis. We have a long way to go in this battle and it's still all uphill.
 
I think that you are reading a lot in to both Simkin and Hill that are not there. There will have to be a fair amount of litigation to move to where you think we already are. With the Chief Justice of the SJC announcing his retirement in July, Patrick will have an opportunity to appoint someone either further to the left to the SJC. I don't think our relief on a statewide and permanent basis will come from the state courts.



Clearly we have "Shall Issue" now in this state. If applicants put "ALP" or equivalent in the reason for issue. Even if they don't in further case they should rule that even that question is (essentially) unConstitutional.

What amazes me is the leap from Simkin where the opinion discusses Arbitrary and Capricious as the main test, ruling that citizens in the Commonwealth becoming alarmed at the sight of a gun is not the responsibility of the licensed person, to this in such a short time frame. The decision doesn't cite Simkin.

Together, this means for all intents and purposes that Open Carrying and going about your business is now not likely to cost your license if you're willing to go to court over it. I assume that someone will start Open Carrying all the time and will be charged with Disturbing the Peace or some such which will eventually be thrown out.

If you Open Carry as a protest without even the pretense of going about your business, I expect that you'll be tried, found guilty of disturbing the peace and then that would be thrown out at the SJC.

Progress is good.

So. Anybody going to start open carrying on a daily basis? I don't and probably won't for strategic purposes, but I've been carrying "loosely concealed" for a long time anyway. Simkin just put my mind to ease about it.
 
Yeah, 'cause when gays won victories, they said: "Shhhh shhhhh let's not rock the boat and keep pushing it. Slow down, let's not get the people upset"

Ya gotta get out there and TAKE the victory and enforce/reinforce it.
 
Yeah, 'cause when gays won victories, they said: "Shhhh shhhhh let's not rock the boat and keep pushing it. Slow down, let's not get the people upset"

Ya gotta get out there and TAKE the victory and enforce/reinforce it.
True, however, the enforcement/reinforcement will be numerous additional court battles.

Together, this means for all intents and purposes that Open Carrying and going about your business is now not likely to cost your license if you're [STRIKE]willing to[/STRIKE] can afford to go to court over it.
FIFY
 
True, however, the enforcement/reinforcement will be numerous additional court battles.


FIFY

Of course!

Not numerous perhaps, just one each as I outlined in my first post.

Yes, cost is an issue if you're willing to fight for your right to your license, or against unjust/unconstitutional prosecutions.

Hey speaking of which, since Hill was found to be a Constitutional issue, doesn't he have redress for expenses?
 
PS look at California -- their "good cause" got slapped down == the same issue, and thousands and thousands of people rushed to get their licenses. Nobody (I hope) told them "Hey, slow down, you might get rejected and lose your right to get a license." They ran out and TOOK it.

We just got SHALL ISSUE. We need to RUN OUT AND TAKE IT.
 
You really don't seem to grasp the difference. Peruta was a decision by the federal Circuit court of appeals. It's binding on CA, maybe even on every state in the Circuit. Hill is binding on the New Bedford PD.

BTW, "thousands and thousands" haven't rushed out in CA to get their permits. At least not yet. Thousands and thousands have rushed out in IL, because the case, as with Peruta, is binding on the entire state.

If the SJC had heard Hill and upheld the Superior Court decision, then we'd have "shall issue". Maybe. Depending on how they wrote the decision.

Big, big, differences. Hill helps, but it's not the decisive victory you seem to think it is.



PS look at California -- their "good cause" got slapped down == the same issue, and thousands and thousands of people rushed to get their licenses. Nobody (I hope) told them "Hey, slow down, you might get rejected and lose your right to get a license." They ran out and TOOK it.

We just got SHALL ISSUE. We need to RUN OUT AND TAKE IT.
 
You really don't seem to grasp the difference. Peruta was a decision by the federal Circuit court of appeals. It's binding on CA, maybe even on every state in the Circuit. Hill is binding on the New Bedford PD.

BTW, "thousands and thousands" haven't rushed out in CA to get their permits. At least not yet. Thousands and thousands have rushed out in IL, because the case, as with Peruta, is binding on the entire state.

If the SJC had heard Hill and upheld the Superior Court decision, then we'd have "shall issue". Maybe. Depending on how they wrote the decision.

Big, big, differences. Hill helps, but it's not the decisive victory you seem to think it is.

I grasp the differences, but I also grasp the similarities and the necessary societal strategy to force the winning game.

Hill is the precedent that lower courts should look to when ruling.

It is won if it is taken, and you're not seeing it yet.

I said the same things about Simkin immediately after the ruling and I was likewise pooh-poohed on this site, now they're writing about how good and important a decision it was. lol

And thousands are rushing in for their licenses in CA and the counties are begging for additional staff to handle it. I'll try to google it for you.
 
Jan 27th
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/2...ts-follows-california-court-second-amendment/

More than 500 applications have poured in to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department in just two weeks — roughly the total number of applications filed in 2013, a spokesman said.

We’ve received as many or more in the last week in a half than we did in the whole calendar year [of 2013],” OCSD Lt. Jeff Hallock told FoxNews.com by phone early Thursday.

That is a week old, and I'm still looking for more recent accounts I read that included multiple counties.
 
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/invest...-Gun-Permit-Applications-Spike-248310961.html
Orange County Sheriff’s officials have seen more concealed weapons permit applications filed with their agency in the last two weeks than they have in the last two years.

More than 1,000 applications to carry concealed weapons have been received, according to information made available under the California Public Records Act.
They have a 1 year backlog for "interviews" in this one county.

Still looking for more... shall I continue?
 
Hill may not be precedent, but even NPR (WBUR) sees it as a sign of where things are going.

And on concealed carry, just look at the numbers -- roughly 75% of MA gun owners have concealed carry permits. If you look at just LTC's, only about 10% are "restricted" from carrying -- based on what we know of local policies, these are most likely concentrated in our largest (and most dangerous) municipalities. Concealed carry is the norm in MA, that's only kept out of certain communities through a strange sort of red lining that does not seem to reflect legislative intent. This didn't make it into the findings of DeLeo's Commission, but that doesn't mean it's a secret.

Now, I suppose Beacon Hill could manage to make things even worse, but both the momentum of nationwide change and the local facts on the ground make that more difficult... at least that's my take.
 
If you look at just LTC's, only about 10% are "restricted" from carrying -- based on what we know of local policies, these are most likely concentrated in our largest (and most dangerous) municipalities
This is indeed accurate. The problem is that it doesn't feel like "10%" (actually, restricted are a single digit percentage) to the resident of Brookline, Watertown, Woburn or Springfield.
 
What percentage of MA residents have a LTC? What percentage of MA residents had an LTC before 1998? I'm asking because I don't know, but from everything I've read a smaller percentage of MA residents now have a LTC than before 1998.

All of which is to say that having a LTC and carrying a firearm is not the norm among the populace of MA. Don't kid yourself, the intent of the Legislature in 1998 was to reduce both the number of LTC holders and the number of FFLs in MA. That is changing despite their intent, not because of it.

When we win, it will be because we win in court and the politicians and some judges will be forced to follow the law and the Constitution.



Hill may not be precedent, but even NPR (WBUR) sees it as a sign of where things are going.

And on concealed carry, just look at the numbers -- roughly 75% of MA gun owners have concealed carry permits. If you look at just LTC's, only about 10% are "restricted" from carrying -- based on what we know of local policies, these are most likely concentrated in our largest (and most dangerous) municipalities. Concealed carry is the norm in MA, that's only kept out of certain communities through a strange sort of red lining that does not seem to reflect legislative intent. This didn't make it into the findings of DeLeo's Commission, but that doesn't mean it's a secret.

Now, I suppose Beacon Hill could manage to make things even worse, but both the momentum of nationwide change and the local facts on the ground make that more difficult... at least that's my take.
 
What percentage of MA residents have a LTC?
Less than 4.6%.
When we win, it will be because we win in court and the politicians and some judges will be forced to follow the law and the Constitution.
Tru dat.

Hill hardly made MA 'shall issue'. What it did do was to start shifting the burden back where it belongs. It puts more pressure on chiefs to justify their suitability denials. Although it is only binding in Bristol County, look for other courts to start falling in line or risking having their decisions appealed.

Both the Simkin and Hill decisions are significant new wins, but I'd be cautious about connecting dots that aren't there. Simkin was a pretty carefully crafted "Simkin didn't do anything wrong because he was doing exactly what the law permitted him to do" kind of ruling. The whole idea that open carry would result is disturbing the peace charges, etc. was dead some time ago, partly because the state has explicitly presented open carry as an alternative to concealed carry.

There may (might, possibly, but probably not) be a place for open carry in our future if the state continues with "there's not right to an LTC/A because that allows people to carry extra dangerous hidden high-capacity weapons in public, and even if there is a right they should have applied for a LTC/B so that they can openly carry are revovler" BS, but I don't think they will. An open carry demonstration at this time it pointless and would prove nothing. If anything it runs the risk of having the legislature ban open carry. While that worked in CA to get Peruta through, it would not work here because we need the license even to open carry.
 
Less than 4.6%.
Tru dat.

Hill hardly made MA 'shall issue'. What it did do was to start shifting the burden back where it belongs. It puts more pressure on chiefs to justify their suitability denials. Although it is only binding in Bristol County, look for other courts to start falling in line or risking having their decisions appealed.

Both the Simkin and Hill decisions are significant new wins, but I'd be cautious about connecting dots that aren't there. Simkin was a pretty carefully crafted "Simkin didn't do anything wrong because he was doing exactly what the law permitted him to do" kind of ruling. The whole idea that open carry would result is disturbing the peace charges, etc. was dead some time ago, partly because the state has explicitly presented open carry as an alternative to concealed carry.

There may (might, possibly, but probably not) be a place for open carry in our future if the state continues with "there's not right to an LTC/A because that allows people to carry extra dangerous hidden high-capacity weapons in public, and even if there is a right they should have applied for a LTC/B so that they can openly carry are revovler" BS, but I don't think they will. An open carry demonstration at this time it pointless and would prove nothing. If anything it runs the risk of having the legislature ban open carry. While that worked in CA to get Peruta through, it would not work here because we need the license even to open carry.
I don't get that reasoning AT ALL.
We are getting the "Shall Issue" precisely because this state bans ALL carry, open or concealed, without a permit. Adding a complete prohibition on open carry would change nothing.

You might be correct in that people open carrying might push the legislature to ban open carry, but that would do almost nothing for them but ensure we have shall issue concealed permits. It would however help mollify some sheep.
It would also likely (depending on the statute) put a small amount pressure on peeps like me to keep things better concealed. I did not consider these angles about symbolic legislative actions.
So you may be right... I'll sleep on it.

In the meantime, you guyz ought to think about contacting everyone in New Bedford (and beyond?) who has been denied and get them to re-apply immediately. Unless I'm missing something else.

Also, we may not be totally on the same page with the term "Open Carry". I am not referring at all to carrying without a permit. I am talking solely about not being scared to open carry under our permits. With 5% LTC coverage, getting people used to seeing a gun around once in a while would be a good thing, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Mr Hill just came into the shop and we had a discussion about his case. Very nice guy and it is nice to see the results of his efforts along with GOAL and comm2a.
 
Back
Top Bottom