Poorly written Globe article (I know) hints you no longer need an LTC to carry in Massachusetts

[Picton]

That reads a lot more clear. Question is, if that is what they meant, why didn't they just say that?

LOL! Because they're lawyers.

 

[pastera]

Comm2A responded to me with

“We are aware of the ruling. The ruling just shifts the burden of proof onto the Commonwealth to prove that someone does not have a permit if they are prosecuted for carrying/possession without a license. Previously, it was an affirmative defense situation, meaning if you were accused of not having a license, it was up to you to prove the Commonwealth wrong at trial. The SJC has shifted the burden of proof back to where it should have been all along. “

So there it is then. Good, but not earth shaking.

Concur - the holding only deals with burden shifting.
However the dicta acknowledged that bearing arms outside the home is a protected right.
A right delayed is a right denied.
Taxing a right is a serious issue.

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
Not sure I would test it but it's a start.

MURDOCK V PENNSYLVANIA

 

[kingeddie98]

I didn't read the thread but I'm up for renewal this year. Looks like I'm saving myself a hundo.

You still need an LTC/FID for firearm and ammo possession/carrying. This ruling just means that the Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't have a license whereas before it was incumbent on the defendant to provide an LTC/FID as a defense to the charge.

 

[Marty McFly]

You still need an LTC/FID for firearm and ammo possession/carrying. This ruling just means that the Commonwealth has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn't have a license whereas before it was incumbent on the defendant to provide an LTC/FID as a defense to the charge.

Yeah I was making a joke but thanks for clarification if I wasn't. I do appreciate that