Shouldn't the SCOTUS case abolish LTC requirements?

[Runs With Scissors]

I don't get it and maybe some one can explain it to me.

If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts still requiring licenses, training, fees, etc for the privilege to exercise our second amendment rights? Under the ruling isn't such an action by the state now firmly considered unconstitutional, ergo illegal? After all, I don't see anyone being charged fees to invoke their first amendment rights.

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do they not understand?

 

[doobie]

I don't get it and maybe some one can explain it to me.

If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts still requiring licenses, training, fees, etc for the privilege to exercise our second amendment rights? Under the ruling isn't such an action by the state now firmly considered unconstitutional, ergo illegal? After all, I don't see anyone being charged fees to invoke their first amendment rights.

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do they not understand?

Didn't the SCOTUS also say "Reasonable restrictions?"

 

[Baldkat82]

Also, i don't believe a lawsuit has been filed yet. Even if one that challenges the licenses does, it might just change the licensing process. I doubt that licenses will actually be eliminated.

 

[terraformer]

Didn't the SCOTUS also say "Reasonable restrictions?"

Yeah, you can drive a truck through that one...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I suggest that you take the time to actually read the ruling. You are in for a severe shock!

The only issue that was decided in our favor was the right to possess a gun in the home, Nothing more than that! "Reasonable restrictions" were specifically "acceptable" according to the ruling.

Then there is that pesky little thing called "incorporation" whereby the ruling only effects the US Gov't (DC being US Gov't property) at this time. It has not yet been extended to the states.

 

[Runs With Scissors]

I suggest that you take the time to actually read the ruling.

Reading the ruling isn't the problem. I've read it several times. Sadly, since I'm not well versed in "legal-eeze" it made no more sense the eighth time I read it then it did the first time. That's why I asked here.

 

[arlow]

The only issue that was decided in our favor was the right to possess a gun in the home, Nothing more than that! "Reasonable restrictions" were specifically "acceptable" according to the ruling.

They also shot down DC's storage requirements saying that forcing people to keep the the guns trigger locked or dissassembled in the home basically rendered them useless for the intended purpose of of self defense.

 

[Len-2A Training]

They also shot down DC's storage requirements saying that forcing people to keep the the guns trigger locked or dissassembled in the home basically rendered them useless for the intended purpose of of self defense.

That one ain't over yet . . .

DC re-implemented the same thing, effectively. The next ruling may indeed work in our favor, but still not relevant to MA (yet).

 

[M1911]

The ruling allowed "reasonable regulations," but did not define what that means.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Furthermore, the decision did not say that DC residents did not need licenses from DC -- rather, it said that DC must issue Heller a license.

So don't hold your breath figuring that the MA LTC/FID restrictions will suddenly be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Titan]

To answer the most specific aspect of your question, regarding the elimination of the need for licenses to carry, don't expect those to go away in our lifetimes.

The court ruled there is an individual right to self defense, but did NOT do what many of us hoped they would do.

It did not uphold that the 'right to keep and bear arms' SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - meaning no licensing, no restrictions, etc.

 

[RG617]

The ruling allowed "reasonable regulations," but did not define what that means.

Furthermore, the decision did not say that DC residents did not need licenses from DC -- rather, it said that DC must issue Heller a license.

So don't hold your breath figuring that the MA LTC/FID restrictions will suddenly be ruled unconstitutional.

Since federal law tends to overrule state, I wonder if the "must issue" given to Heller can be used as grounds that LTC's are "shall issue" according to federal law. Since none of our resident legal eagles have mentioned it I'm assuming thete's more to it, but I'd be interested in the take from that perspective. Can't hurt to try and gain some education on the matter.

 

[LoginName]

To answer the most specific aspect of your question, regarding the elimination of the need for licenses to carry, don't expect those to go away in our lifetimes.

The court ruled there is an individual right to self defense, but did NOT do what many of us hoped they would do.

It did not uphold that the 'right to keep and bear arms' SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - meaning no licensing, no restrictions, etc.

Part of the reason for that is that during oral arguments, even Hellers lawyer (Alan Gura), conceded that some restrictions are allowable (licensing being one of them)...

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with . . . licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by_the_majority

It's also highly possible that in order to gain Kennedys vote, Scalia (and/or any of the other 3 majority justices), agreed that licensing is permissible.

What could be promising with regard to licensing and the SCOTUS's opinion, is that it could lead to elimination of the "may issue" system...

so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.'

The good news/bad news there is that most likely, "shall issue" licensing
would only apply to purchasing and possession of a firearm.

Since Heller only addressed protection in ones home, a license to carry a concealed firearm would probably still be subject to "may issue".

As previously mentioned though, that won't happen until a future SCOTUS decision incorporates the second amendment so that it apples to the states.

Unfortunately... that could be quite along time (if the court even decides to hear any future case relating to Heller). The Heller (Parker), suit was originally filed in February 2003.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

This is why, when people say "we are for reasonable gun control legislation", we are instantly screwed for a LONG time. It is easy to create a Bill, slap a bunch of supporting names on it, and then eventually vote and sign into law: It can take a lifetime to recover your rights as a citizen of the United States. Meanwhile, you are disenfranchised and there is no recourse but to wait for a bunch of political hack appointees to rule on what was rightfully yours to begin with... You have a better chance at placing your house on the wheel in Vegas than winning in a slanted Court... To me, this IS the one problem we have within the process between the Executive, Judicial and the Legislative Branch: The HACK politicians can appoint life members to the Judicial branch where their BS is upheld. IMO, the citizens who elect these clowns should be the ones who VOTE on these judicial appointments into office.

When politicians can implement laws that will be upheld as "reasonable restrictions" against rights that are not to be infringed, we will all be screwed.

 

[Half Cocked]

The main issue that will apply to Ma will most likely be the storage requirements for in the home.

The LTC requirements will most likely not be affected by Heller as Heller allows "reasonable" restrictions.

 

[Runs With Scissors]

Part of the reason for that is that during oral arguments, even Hellers lawyer (Alan Gura), conceded that some restrictions are allowable

The LTC requirements will most likely not be affected by Heller as Heller allows "reasonable" restrictions.

So, the case forced the courts to openly acknowledge that the words "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." permit citizens to own firearms and simultaneously it allowed them slap a big "but" at the end of it and tack on requirements, exceptions, licenses, fees, etc?

Wow! This court stuff is blowing my mind.

Heller's admission that restrictions are reasonable should not give the courts reason to apply those restrictions. I had no idea that Heller could tell the courts what to do. LOL!

 

[jar]

The LTC requirements will most likely not be affected by Heller as Heller allows "reasonable" restrictions.

I agree that the carry part won't be affected. However, I think once Heller is incorporated, making at least the LTC B shall issue should be a slam dunk.

 

[M1911]

You must realize that the Heller case is just the start of 2nd Amendment litigation. There will be many more cases over the course of many years to define just what is "reasonable" and what is not.

 

[Garys]

You must realize that the Heller case is just the start of 2nd Amendment litigation. There will be many more cases over the course of many years to define just what is "reasonable" and what is not.

The second wave of suits were filed immediately upon release of the Heller decision. Which you know, but I thought I'd mention for the benefit of those that missed it. The next wave will tackle the "incorporation" issue. If that decision (4-5 years from now?) incorporates the Second Amendment as applying to the states, then the storage requirements might fall immediately after. As might discretionary licensing for LTC. I think it might be more likely that the FID would be modified to allow purchase and possession of handguns within your residence and/or business. It might not effect carry in public at all. That would depend further litigation.

All of which is utter speculation on my part as no one knows what SCOTUS will decide when a case comes before. Or even if they will agree to accept a case.

All of which is why it's important to make sure McCain is elected, but I don't want to start that debate again.

 

[Nickle]

Heller was just a start.

So, what will you gain from Heller?

At the worst, nothing.

At the most, after a few major details, like incorporation, you will probably see All States being required to at a minimum, issue owner permits (not CCW), and those permits will be "Shall Issue". They are already allowed to not require permits to own firearms.

Heller does absolutely, positively NOTHING for Concealed Carry.

This you can see by reading the decision, and it is in plain English.

The lawyers and other on this forum that understand this kind of stuff have already stated all of this.

And, I'll say it AGAIN, because it needs to be understood. The key thing that needs to happen is INCORPORATION.

Get that done, and your Mass permit system falls to dust. You'll get "Shall Issue" owner permits, and no mandatory change to CCW permits.

 

[M1911]

Heller does absolutely, positively NOTHING for Concealed Carry.

+1 Heller only addressed the ownership and use of firearms inside the home. It did not address the issue of carrying outside of the home.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

+1 Heller only addressed the ownership and use of firearms inside the home. It did not address the issue of carrying outside of the home.

Which was a God given right back when they wrote the Second Amendment!

 

[M1911]

Which was a God given right back when they wrote the Second Amendment!

That, and $4.50, will get you a latte.

But as of right now, Heller doesn't give us shall-issue concealed carry permits or Vermont-style carry laws.

 

[Chris]

Heller was just a start.

So, what will you gain from Heller?

That pro-gun groups are now certified as "Civil Rights" groups and anti-gun groups are ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS.

 

[Nickle]

That pro-gun groups are now certified as "Civil Rights" groups and anti-gun groups are ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS.

Not really.

Brady is just smart enough to be more tactful than to get caught in that.

See, they don't OPENLY advocate banning firearms. They only want "reasonable restrictions".

Heller didn't take licensing or registration off the table. It just said that an OUTRIGHT ban is unacceptable, along with storage restrictions.

Now, DC government certainly can be construed as "Anti Civil Rights".

 

[WayneWong]

The decision does shift the burden of proof towards the government.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The main issue that will apply to Ma will most likely be the storage requirements for in the home.

I disagree. Here's why.

DC required ALL guns in the home to be disabled/taken apart, kept that way at ALL TIMES.

MGLs allows someone with a LTC to carry on their person at any time within their home.

Storage in MA is only an issue when you are not in direct control. Therefore the only vulnerability that I see (IANAL) is when you are sleeping and the gun is within arm's reach . . . currently a point of disagreement and that could "fall" if Heller has any effect on MA (after incorporation and a lot of foot-dragging).

You must realize that the Heller case is just the start of 2nd Amendment litigation. There will be many more cases over the course of many years to define just what is "reasonable" and what is not.

Most of us will be too old, arthritic and blind by the time we might get back all our rights to self-defense. This is a very long haul deal.

At the most, after a few major details, like incorporation, you will probably see All States being required to at a minimum, issue owner permits (not CCW), and those permits will be "Shall Issue". They are already allowed to not require permits to own firearms.

Heller does absolutely, positively NOTHING for Concealed Carry.

I agree with both points quoted above.

 

[Garys]

I disagree. Here's why.

DC required ALL guns in the home to be disabled/taken apart, kept that way at ALL TIMES.

MGLs allows someone with a LTC to carry on their person at any time within their home.

And here in lies the problem. LTCs are discretionary, while FIDs are shall issue. Even though I can keep a firearm loaded and unlocked in my home while I am there, if I have a FID, that firearm must be a long gun. Heller specifically refers to using a handgun for in home self defense and stated that DC must issue a permit for a handgun to be kept in the home, unless the applicant is a prohibited person.

As I stated earlier, incorporation will change that, maybe by changing the FID to include in home possession of handguns. It will be subsequent decisions that will (hopefully) extend shall issue to carrying outside of your residence or place of business.

 

[M1911]

Most of us will be too old, arthritic and blind by the time we might get back all our rights to self-defense. This is a very long haul deal.

Agreed. At times, these sort of legal fights seem to run by a geologic time scale.

 

[clinotus]

Agreed. At times, these sort of legal fights seem to run by a geologic time scale.

60+ years so far.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

If the Supreme Court of the United States of America has firmly declared that the right to bear arms is an individual one then why is Massachusetts...

Consider your question self-answered.