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 February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
The supreme court comes out and says that licensed citizens have the right to legally possess and use firearms for self defense so how is MA still able to restrict licenses?
Also Heller means squat until we get a state court ruling that holds water that incorporates it into MA law.
Wouldn't that be a federal court ruling, not a state court ruling?
True, but a MA court can't decide incorporation -- that has to be done by a federal court. Correct? What I mean to say is that a MA Appellate Court can decide that Heller applies, but that does not change the fact that in federal court, incorporation is still undecided.IANAL, but a MA Appellate Court is certainly free to rule based on Heller (in our favor) and if they did, it would hold water in MA . . . even if the Feds (USSC) hadn't "incorporated" the 2nd A yet.
Agreed.That said, I seriously doubt that this would happen however.
Correct, the MA Court can't decide "incorporation", but they can certainly consider Heller in making a decision on a MA case and thus set a precedent.
Wouldn't that be a federal court ruling, not a state court ruling?
True, but a MA court can't decide incorporation -- that has to be done by a federal court. Correct? What I mean to say is that a MA Appellate Court can decide that Heller applies, but that does not change the fact that in federal court, incorporation is still undecided.
I agree with the comments, but where is the case law on these issues. MA has no challenges to their licensing procedure. And I am not talking about denials of machine gun licenses (lets be reasonable here) I am talking about restricting the rights of citizens guaranteed by US Constituton and elaborated more in the MA Constitution. There has to be some case recently challenged the Constittuonality of the firearm licensing in MA.
Clearly M.G.L is not guarenteeing equal protection, consider this:
Joe Blow from Town A get a restricted license and Joe Shmoe from Town X get an unrestricted license when they are both the same age, hold the same employment, both have impeccable records, applied on the same day and are both outstanding citizens.
Or Consider this: Joe Doe and Tom Blow from Town A: both apply on the same day, both have spotless records, except Joe is a 50 year old unemployed citizen and Tom is a 25 year old graduate student. The town issues Joe an ALWP license and restricts Tom.
IMO: (a manifestation of knowledge from my CON LAW class) I believe that the system MA has setup is too arbitrary and not fundamentally sound. I would have no problem with the restrictions if it was the same across the board for every town. There are no guidelines except for the state imposed guidelines that suggest who and who can't have a license (21 years of age, take a class, no criminal record, ect.). Everything the Police Chief does is based on a biased classification of persons which is what the Equal Protection Clause seeks to eliminate.
Like I said if EVERYONE in the state was denied an ALWP's license UNLESS they NEED it for employment then that's fine. But the discrepancies are clearly not fair and it is totally unreasonable to move to a different town on an account that the Police Chief has bias against new licensee's. Now I claim to be no expert at all, but I believe everyone has a right to protect their person whether or not within the home. Honestly even if I had an ALWP's license I would never carry it unless I felt I needed to i.e. meeting someone from craigslist to complete a sale of property ect. ect. ect.
What is everyones opinion?
The supreme court comes out and says that licensed citizens have the right to legally possess and use firearms for self defense so how is MA still able to restrict licenses?
The only issue that I could see from Heller that may apply to MA is the issue of storage/security of a firearm in the residence. There is a case on this currently due to be heard in the Ma SJC.
IANAL, but a MA Appellate Court is certainly free to rule based on Heller (in our favor) and if they did, it would hold water in MA . . . even if the Feds (USSC) hadn't "incorporated" the 2nd A yet.
That said, I seriously doubt that this would happen however.
BARNSTABLE — A U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a requirement that guns be locked or disassembled when stored has convinced a Barnstable District Court judge to dismiss a firearms charge against a Massachusetts state trooper.
State police Lt. Richard Bolduc was charged last summer with illegally storing a large-capacity firearm in the presence of a minor. Bolduc's 12-year-old son took his father's police-issued handgun from a bureau in their Sandwich home, pointed it at a 5-year-old neighbor, and pulled the trigger, according to court records.
While the gun was not loaded and no one was hurt, police said they found a full clip in the same drawer where it was stored. Bolduc's son was charged separately as a minor.
The parents of the 5-year-old neighbor could not be reached for comment before press time last night.
Earlier this month, Bolduc's attorney, Daniel O'Malley, argued before Judge Joan Lynch that the firearms charge should be dropped based on the June 26 Supreme Court ruling.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court declared a Washington, D.C., gun ban unconstitutional and struck down the storage requirements because, the court decided, they violated a citizen's right of self protection.
Lynch took the matter under advisement, then issued a written decision Thursday.
Judge W. James O'Neill officially declared the case dismissed in Barnstable District Court yesterday.
Bolduc declined to comment after the brief hearing.
After he was charged, Bolduc was placed on restricted duty by the state police, a status that remained unchanged as of 1 p.m. yesterday, a spokeswoman said.
Bolduc's gun was been taken away, and he was reassigned to the Middleboro barracks, where he no longer has access to a state police vehicle.
Bolduc could still face sanctions from the state police.
The state agency's firearms policy states that all service weapons must be locked away and unloaded when a trooper is off-duty.
RKG: While the SJC could decide that the 2nd Amendment governs MA, would that decide incorporation? Wouldn't incorporation still be undecided for the other states?
What the HELL are we waiting for WHERE's THE F-ING CHALLENGE!!! NRA do something we don't don't pay membeship fees for NOTHING hahah