Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

When I asked from "an other unfriendly state" (Massachusetts), I was effectively told earlier in this thread "None of this Bruen stuff is about Massachusetts, and what is happening is slow and won't happen for years. You will be told in this thread when either of those changes."
You’re being passive-aggressive.

Do you not realize that Bruen made Massachusetts change its policies about license restrictions? Or that red towns are now green because of Bruen? Or that MA has not tried anything as stupid as deliberately passing an even more restrictive set of statutes as a direct challenge to SCOTUS?

If MA was anywhere near as bad as NYS, we’d be talking more about MA here. But MA chose not to lose its mind after Bruen; instead, it made changes to avoid notice by SCOTUS.
 
Mass should also be removing “suitability,” as it directly contradicts Bruen
They did. De facto. If it ever needs to get challenged in court, it’ll probably go even further away.

Honestly, the only objectionable parts of the LTC process left are the training and fee requirements. SCOTUS explicitly said that licenses are bueno, so the fees are unlikely to go away. Maybe the training will, maybe not.

compared to when I got my first LTC in a red town, the post-Bruen climate for LTCs is night and day.
 
They did. De facto. If it ever needs to get challenged in court, it’ll probably go even further away.

Honestly, the only objectionable parts of the LTC process left are the training and fee requirements. SCOTUS explicitly said that licenses are bueno, so the fees are unlikely to go away. Maybe the training will, maybe not.

compared to when I got my first LTC in a red town, the post-Bruen climate for LTCs is night and day.
Except for reference letters, turtling, and general obstructionism. That stuff is liable to be around until it can get picked off somehow.....
 
Except for reference letters, turtling, and general obstructionism. That stuff is liable to be around until it can get picked off somehow.....
Ah.

Well, it does take someone with enough time and energy to take it to court. And they’d also have to show harm. As long as those letters and obstruction aren’t used for actual denial, that’s going to be difficult.
 
Ah.

Well, it does take someone with enough time and energy to take it to court. And they’d also have to show harm. As long as those letters and obstruction aren’t used for actual denial, that’s going to be difficult.
That's the thing the legally after a point a right delayed is a right denied like if issuing authority has been turtling on somebody's appointment or application for 100 days at which point does it actually become an infringement? Actually a big Improvement would be a court case that actually just forced the issuing authorities to obey the existing Massachusetts law that would probably be a good start. No trickeration or b*******, and the timer starts when the person actually drops off their application at the PD...
 
They did. De facto. If it ever needs to get challenged in court, it’ll probably go even further away.

Honestly, the only objectionable parts of the LTC process left are the training and fee requirements. SCOTUS explicitly said that licenses are bueno, so the fees are unlikely to go away. Maybe the training will, maybe not.

compared to when I got my first LTC in a red town, the post-Bruen climate for LTCs is night and day.
BS, there has been no change in the law since 2015 and even after that judges still cited "broad discretion", in direct contradiction of the law. And they still maintain that suitability isn't arbitrary and thus not in contradiction to Bruen.
 
Honestly, the only objectionable parts of the LTC process left are the training and fee requirements.
I'd say the existence of/need for an LTC is the most objectionable part.

Except for reference letters, turtling, and general obstructionism. That stuff is liable to be around until it can get picked off somehow.....
I wrote my buddy a reference letter for his first LTC in Woburn a few weeks ago, so unfortunately Woburn is at least 1 town still requiring them.
 
When I asked from "an other unfriendly state" (Massachusetts), I was effectively told earlier in this thread "None of this Bruen stuff is about Massachusetts, and what is happening is slow and won't happen for years. You will be told in this thread when either of those changes."
It certainly does effect Ma.
"May" to "Shall" issue .
It may take a while to whip some of the D-bag towns into line , but we'll get there.
 
It certainly does effect Ma.
"May" to "Shall" issue .
It may take a while to whip some of the D-bag towns into line , but we'll get there.
Yes, I knew it did this initially. I was more talking about more recent updates in this thread. They are almost entirely New York based.
 
Read this:
Definition of “de facto”

In practice, municipalities are not denying people for discretion or suitability.
So you've done the public info request for all the municipalities in MA? Or is it just that your one municipality hasn't, as far as you know.

About 8 years ago I did an info request of the 9 metro-west towns for this specific info for the past 5 years. More than 1/2 tried to weasel out of providing it. Based on that admittedly small and old sample there would be 100s of suitability denials every year across the state. I highly doubt that dropped to zero overnight especially considering that the AG said it was still OK to deny on suitability and there is zero repercussions to the LO for doing it.

But if you've got the data, I'm willing to look, and be wrong.
 
So you've done the public info request for all the municipalities in MA? Or is it just that your one municipality hasn't, as far as you know.

About 8 years ago I did an info request of the 9 metro-west towns for this specific info for the past 5 years. More than 1/2 tried to weasel out of providing it. Based on that admittedly small and old sample there would be 100s of suitability denials every year across the state. I highly doubt that dropped to zero overnight especially considering that the AG said it was still OK to deny on suitability and there is zero repercussions to the LO for doing it.

But if you've got the data, I'm willing to look, and be wrong.

Any research done before Bruen hit is basically meaningless, other than as a guide as to which towns are more likely to try to push the edges.

There really hasn't been enough time for any useful data since Bruen.

So, no, I haven't done any public info requests.

My understanding (from, you know, "crap on The Internet") is that the CLEO cannot anymore deny anyone because they don't like your reasons or your haircut or because "we don't give out licences to anyone but cops and lawyers". They now have to come up with real, articulatable reasons for denying, reasons that will stand up in court when challenged. Not just "I got a hunch", or "too many speeding tickets".

So, yea, there will be some people who might still get caught by suitability, but the reasons have to be way, way better than before. That means, for most people, it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hense, "de facto"
 
My understanding (from, you know, "crap on The Internet") is that the CLEO cannot anymore deny anyone because they don't like your reasons or your haircut or because "we don't give out licences to anyone but cops and lawyers". They now have to come up with real, articulatable reasons for denying, reasons that will stand up in court when challenged. Not just "I got a hunch", or "too many speeding tickets".

So, yea, there will be some people who might still get caught by suitability, but the reasons have to be way, way better than before. That means, for most people, it doesn't really matter anymore.

Hense, "de facto"
I disagree, kind of. I agree with pretty much everything here, except the "de facto", because they will always be on the lookout for a suitability denial to replace the discretionary denial. This just means they need, as you say, "articulatable" reasons.
 
I disagree, kind of. I agree with pretty much everything here, except the "de facto", because they will always be on the lookout for a suitability denial to replace the discretionary denial. This just means they need, as you say, "articulatable" reasons.

And if it ever happens, you'll hear it here first. I have no doubt.

But then? There will be a federal civil rights case. And that would not have been possible pre-Bruen.
 

So much for Bruen being only about concealed carry.
 

So much for Bruen being only about concealed carry.
YAAA!
Should be interesting.
I guess I need to send each a Christmas Present.
 

So much for Bruen being only about concealed carry.

Always a bridesmaid and never a bride...

lzkTfBQ.jpg



🐯
 
Back
Top Bottom