Police: Woburn Man Who Just Received License To Carry Accidentally Shoots Friend While Showing New Gun

[42!]

But at least one court in MA held that these are not the only reasons the issuing authority may use, and that (s)he is free to use other criteria as well.

True, and doesn't really affect the argument that with the definitions being the same, if it applies to one it applies to the other, and the converse is true as well.

 

[PappyM3]

Wrong
For an LTC
"A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety."
And an FID
" (i) reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety. "

The chief can say anything he wants, but with the legal definition being identical the argument in court writes itself. How can someone be a risk to public safety and not at the same time. And does say handgun v. rifle, all that takes is bring up the media bull on mass shooting that in MA the judge is sure to believe.

Interesting, I hadn’t seen the unsuitability determination paragraphs before. But they are not the same. I’ve bolded the key differences.

 

[42!]

Interesting, I hadn’t seen the unsuitability determination paragraphs before. But they are not the same. I’ve bolded the key differences.

You get a triple facepalm for that, ya not the exact same words, just nearly so, and clearly the same meaning.

 

[PappyM3]

You get a triple facepalm for that, ya not the exact same words, just nearly so, and clearly the same meaning.

I have no idea what the MA legislature meant for each, but it is clear they intended them to have different meaning, otherwise they would have copied and pasted.

And the unsuitable information for FID also needs to be articulable, where it doesn’t need to be for LTC.

 

[42!]

I have no idea what the MA legislature meant for each, but it is clear they intended them to have different meaning, otherwise they would have copied and pasted.

And the unsuitable information for FID also needs to be articulable, where it doesn’t need to be for LTC.

You just being childish, say whatever you want. Not worth my time.

 

[PappyM3]

You just being childish, say whatever you want. Not worth my time.

I’m being childish because words, particularly in the text of laws, have specific meaning. You said they were the same, they are not, and have distinct differences. Full stop.

I’m not trying to prove you wrong, if that’s what you’re feeling. I admitted that I had t noticed those paragraphs before. But they’re not the same.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I have no idea what the MA legislature meant for each, but it is clear they intended them to have different meaning, otherwise they would have copied and pasted.

And the unsuitable information for FID also needs to be articulable, where it doesn’t need to be for LTC.

This is why the courts have held that carry not on one's person on school property is not a crime - because the "on ones person" qualifier in 269-10j is presumed to have meaning, since it is not in the other sections banning carry.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Take one look at this dude and it should have been clear he was a risk to public safety.

 

[caligula]

Ya done f***ed up A A RON

 

[BOOTKNIFEFAN]

If we're being creative then, the gov's compelling interest in public safety would be better served by requiring sterilization of the dumbass as a condition of his release than would be achieved by loss of his 2A rights. Making him a prohibited person for the purpose of procreation would provide superior benefit to the public.

In the end, it's a terrible shame the victim's life is forever altered, however, you do choose your friends. It's nice to have one dope in your posse to serve as the fall guy but, McShooter's stupid gene rose to the level of seriously dangerous.

Does the Woburn CoP or his licensing officer not conduct in-person interviews with applicants? I would think a 10 minute face-to-face chat with McShooter might have raised some suitability concerns.
.

If we're being creative then, the gov's compelling interest in public safety would be better served by requiring sterilization of the dumbass as a condition of his release than would be achieved by loss of his 2A rights. Making him a prohibited person for the purpose of procreation would provide superior benefit to the public.

In the end, it's a terrible shame the victim's life is forever altered, however, you do choose your friends. It's nice to have one dope in your posse to serve as the fall guy but, McShooter's stupid gene rose to the level of seriously dangerous.

Does the Woburn CoP or his licensing officer not conduct in-person interviews with applicants? I would think a 10 minute face-to-face chat with McShooter might have raised some suitability concerns.
.

My wife and I were interviewed by Maureen, not Chief Rufo. It is my understanding that the chief was once a sheriff or a deputy sheriff or some kind of marshal. My typed, notarized, certified-mail letter explaining my 1985 California felony dangerous weapon arrest was addressed to his attention alone, per Maureen's instructions. She didn't think it would be a problem, since it happened decades ago and ended in dismissal. She did indicate that it "might" be a problem if it was recent, but did not elaborate. I never met Chief Rufo. Neither did my wife.

 

[MGnoob]

The charge list is full of typical MA retard. Storage and discharge near a building. Lol.

Yeah, they had to tack those on, shooting his friend in the neck wasn’t enough...

 

[MGnoob]

Do you think they’ll stay friends?

 

[Asaltweapon]

Do you think they’ll stay friends?

Maybe he can give his best friend a bed bath once in a while and push him around to see the sights in his new wheelchair.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yeah, they had to tack those on, shooting his friend in the neck wasn’t enough...

If by chance the shooting is ruled a non criminal accident (unlikely since the shooter does not have special status), the discharge within 500ft charge is enough to make him a federal PP for life if they get a conviction.

 

[AHM]

If by change the shooting is ruled a non criminal accident (unlikely since the shooter does not have special status), the discharge within 500ft charge is enough to make him a federal PP for life if they get a conviction.

Is not "without permission" an element of the crime?
If so...

The idle popcorn munching entertainment for me about that charge
would be to see whether, if that went to trial, the prosecution
remembered to introduce evidence that someone in one of those 500' buildings
was not OK with a gun being fired.

Imagine the prosecution resting and then the defense asking for a dismissal
of that count on the basis that not all elements had been proved.

 

[blackrock_shoots]

Poor guy will be in a wheelchair for life now :/ Guessing that friendship is done. Such a careless idiot. Only leads to more politicians gaining firepower against 2a.

 

[dcmdon]

Based on Heller and McDonald, you have a constitutional right to posses a handgun in the home.

An LTC is required to posses a handgun.

So based on this (in theory) they would have to issue you an LTC (possibly with restrictions since actually carrying hasn't been adjudicated as a Constitutional right).
Provided whatever it was would not make you a prohibited person.

I'm asking this of people who actually know something.
Please spare me the "because its Mass" kind of comments.


Why has this not been pushed by Comm2A or GOAL? Has there not been an ideal test case?

Thanks.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Is not "without permission" an element of the crime?
If so...

Yes. He can beat the rap if he get permission from the person with lawful dominion over every occupied building within 500 feet. Good luck with that. Then, of course, they could file discharge within 150ft of a roadway (assuming it was). The MA SJC (or SMC if you prefer) has ruled that intent is not an element of the crime of discharge within 500ft and that ADs meet the definition of the crime because the penalty is "so minor". They did not even consider or address the issue of lifetime federal PP status as a penalty.

The idle popcorn munching entertainment for me about that charge would be to see whether, if that went to trial, the prosecution remembered to introduce evidence that someone in one of those 500' buildings was not OK with a gun being fired.

It is probable the court would rule that permission is an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise and prove.

 

[AHM]

He can beat the rap if he get permission from the person with lawful dominion over every occupied building within 500 feet. Good luck with that.

How does the prosecution prove he didn't do that?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How does the prosecution prove he didn't do that?

The prosecution could get one witness who did not give permission or, as I have said, the burden of proof may be on the defendant.

 

[meh]

Do you think this case even goes to trial?

 

[microwave900]

Based on Heller and McDonald, you have a constitutional right to posses a handgun in the home.

An LTC is required to posses a handgun.

So based on this (in theory) they would have to issue you an LTC (possibly with restrictions since actually carrying hasn't been adjudicated as a Constitutional right).
Provided whatever it was would not make you a prohibited person.

I'm asking this of people who actually know something.
Please spare me the "because its Mass" kind of comments.


Why has this not been pushed by Comm2A or GOAL? Has there not been an ideal test case?

Thanks.

I’m not a legal expert but I believe this is being fought in the courts right now (for the last 3+ years). Before 2018, the result was a court decision that he didn’t need an LTC because he could just get an FID plus a Permit to Purchase a handgun. Which are allowed by law and allows you to keep a handgun only in the home…but these permits are really rare. In any case, he couldn’t get a Permit to Purchase so now they are litigating the question you asked. As usual, any court other than SCOTUS is going to give gun rights a loss, so the best hope is SCOTUS.

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I’m not a legal expert but I believe this is being fought in the courts right now (for the last 3+ years). Before 2018, the result was a court decision that he didn’t need an LTC because he could just get an FID plus a Permit to Purchase a handgun. Which are allowed by law and allows you to keep a handgun only in the home…but these permits are really rare. In any case, he couldn’t get a Permit to Purchase so now they are litigating the question you asked. As usual, any court other than SCOTUS is going to give gun rights a loss, so the best hope is SCOTUS.

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

www.northeastshooters.com

Actually, it was not a court decision establishing that but the court's blind acceptance of the AGs counsel asserting that, despite the law clearly not allowing possession of a firearm (term for handgun under MGL) on a FID.

 

[Miguelito]

Don't forget all the PD negligent discharges while working construction details due to jacket draw strings and or playing with holstered guns that never result in charges or disciplinary action.

Rhode Island's lone congressman is in a wheelchair for that very reason. He was a teenager in one of those cadet programs for kids and got shot by a cop, maybe in a locker room, forget

 

[MGnoob]

Based on Heller and McDonald, you have a constitutional right to posses a handgun in the home.

An LTC is required to posses a handgun.

So based on this (in theory) they would have to issue you an LTC (possibly with restrictions since actually carrying hasn't been adjudicated as a Constitutional right).
Provided whatever it was would not make you a prohibited person.

I'm asking this of people who actually know something.
Please spare me the "because its Mass" kind of comments.


Why has this not been pushed by Comm2A or GOAL? Has there not been an ideal test case?

Thanks.

My thoughts are if it’s discharged inside of the home it should be exempt from the neighbors. But that’s not how it legally works..

They do go for blood try to make him federally prohibited....But the same time they should be worried about Massachusetts were a denial of an LTC based on “you shot your friend in the neck” Isn’t a real hard sell

 

[Asaltweapon]

Is there any such home for the dope shooter that is less than 150 from any road in Woburn?

 

[Old Toad]

only 2 posts for the .40 dump to start

It's a 10mm "short".

 

[dcmdon]

It's a 10mm "short".

.40 Slow and Weak. Ha

 

[dcmdon]

I’m not a legal expert but I believe this is being fought in the courts right now (for the last 3+ years). Before 2018, the result was a court decision that he didn’t need an LTC because he could just get an FID plus a Permit to Purchase a handgun. Which are allowed by law and allows you to keep a handgun only in the home…but these permits are really rare. In any case, he couldn’t get a Permit to Purchase so now they are litigating the question you asked. As usual, any court other than SCOTUS is going to give gun rights a loss, so the best hope is SCOTUS.

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

www.northeastshooters.com

There is a permit to purchase a handgun in MA??

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Subject of OP’s going to jail