The scary part is they could probably still get away with that as long as it wasn't used to establish "good cause" and was applied equally to all. The grading would have to be objective.I remember applying for my first LTC in Littleton in the early 90's and I had to take a 25 question multiple choice test and pass with a 75% to be granted my LTC.
Imagine that!
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
Show me where it says that for anything other than issuing a license.
And Medford has already specifically stated they will enforce current restrictions.
They won't give you a binding answer, if any answer at all. Not their job to answer questions.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
man im restricted to target and hunting </3
namedpipes
NES Member
The AG is stating their opinion how they interpret the Bruen ruling in relation to state law. The “must issue unrestricted” is admitting that the restrictions are unconstitutional based on the Bruen ruling. Therefore, any existing restrictions are unconstitutional. Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is no law. The Medford PD is just spitting out drivel.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,619
Is this paranoia or an accurate summary of the situation:
Hypothetical:
- Brookline resident is caught carryout outside restriction post-Bruen
- Applicant goes to renew.
- Applicant is told "Although new standards were in place at the time of your violation of restrictions, you had not obtained an unrestricted license. Just as Bruen did not allow one to carry without a license, it also did not allow one to carry without a restricted license. That make you an unsuitable person"\
Hypothetical:
- Brookline resident is caught carryout outside restriction post-Bruen
- Applicant goes to renew.
- Applicant is told "Although new standards were in place at the time of your violation of restrictions, you had not obtained an unrestricted license. Just as Bruen did not allow one to carry without a license, it also did not allow one to carry without a restricted license. That make you an unsuitable person"\
You may be right. Emphasis "may" when you consider it is the courts, and not you, that make that determination.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,619
This.
Even Maura knows you can't have constitutionally discrete treatment of new licenses vs existing licenses. It would be like getting into a time machine back to 1967 and applying Loving to new marriages, but not existing marriages. Noooooope.
And even if she doesn't know that, she knows appellate courts know it.
She's having her cake and eating it too, and hoping we'll let her do that. Some of us here seem to be quite willing to do so.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
If we don't want people to have access to firearms, vote, whatever, then we need to keep them in prison longer until they no longer pose a threat to society. This way we only have to worry about imprisoning the most violent psychopaths. Once out they become free people again. No exceptions. Free is free, there are no "yeah you can be free but....".
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
and yet MEDFORD IS STILL BEING MEDFORD !! enforcing restrictions make me just laugh
pastera
NES Member
I completely agree with you and have full confidence that any person who carries against restrictions will eventually be exonerated of any accusations but depending on the town will still take the ride.
If the person is found to be carrying with restrictions because they successfully defend themselves, the fact that they were carrying against their local police's permission will be the first thing a jury hears and the judge will suppress any information on Bruen being introduced to counter.
How many times does NES remind itself never, ever to take legal advice from a cop? Especially about firearms law?
This would seem to be another of those times.
I think we can all agree that asking Medford to reissue a license without restrictions would be the safest approach. Maybe not most successful, but at least that is heading in the right direction. If they refuse, can that then be brought forward as a case here?
Well, we all know that people who successfully defend themselves with a firearm in MA, no matter what's written on their license, are in a world of hurt regardless of the circumstances.
But in the scenario you posit, I doubt it'd even see a jury. The prosecutors are bound by the AG no less than the police are. They'd know it's foolish to go ahead with that part of the case, and if not? The judge most likely understands Bruen, and knows that the entire case risks being overturned on appeal if he allows that evidence in.
No judge likes being successfully appealed.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
They are still enforcing for some apparent reason
pastera
NES Member
Not ask - demand
Question is how much time would it take one of the NES 2A attorneys to draft a proper demmand letter that would be admissable.
Essentially put the LO on notice that restrictions are unconstitutional and you are giving them the opportunity to right an infringement before legal action.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
my only worry is having my licensed revoked if caught carrying
I'm sure we'd all chip in for the billable hour (or so) that it would take to draft such a letter, provided it's generic enough to be sendable to many PDs.
IN.
You'd be on the phone to Comm2A immediately, of course... If you haven't already.
I like this approach. Relatively short money. Probably would even contribute a few bucks to fund.
SFC13557
NES Member
The courts in the States with high violent crime rates, blue States, have installed liberal judges who will go soft on violent criminals because they belong to a specific race. Even if they do serious jail time there is no rehabilitation and when they get out they will resort to the same criminal behavior that got them arrested because they know nothing else. They don't have the skills to live in polite society and have no desire to do so. They will have no problem acquiring a firearm but it sure as hell won't be legally.
pastera
NES Member
The reason that I keep harping on demand versus ask I's how the right to have representation during questioning is treated.
A person saying that they would like to have an attorney present or asking if they could have one is legally treated as not having invoked one's rights. You must demand affirmatively that you are invoking your right to counsel and then STFU.
Same here - don't ask if you could enjoy your right to carry; demand it be recognized by removal of unconstitutional restrictions. SCOTUS left licenses in place so as a law abiding person you need an unrestricted license to comply while enjoying your rights therefore the state must provide an unrestricted license so long as you are not legally prohibited
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
ive tried contacting them yes havent heard of a response quite yet but no way medford pd can do this with a straight face
pastera
NES Member
Have you contacted someone like @nstassel ?
There are a number of us who have already said that we would toss some money to a 2A counsel who would work this with the right person.
A few hours of time is around a grand - if people here pony up the promised cash then at least half would be covered.
Com2a is very likely inundated right now so paying your own way is likely the fastest way (and if you give your lawyer permission to post that you are a good candidate here then you will have access to help)
Garys
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,619
The jury is not the high risk issue; suitability is.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
- Messages
- 142
- Likes
- 256
something that it this point id be interested in
