What does suitability mean in MA?

[42!]

This isn't a question on how it's being used or what the law actually says. It's not about whether or not you feel it violates the 2a. This is a question about what YOU think the current law means when it defines Suitability, examples of what would make a person unsuitable as defined by the current law, regardless of whether you agree with the law or not. The law uses words like "clear", "specific", and "risk to public safety". What does it take to fulfill these requirements, in your opinion.

I suspect there is a very broad range of what people think this means. And that this varies widely inside and outside of 128 and 495, and 91.

MGL C140 s129B
A determination of unsuitability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence that there exists: (i) reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior to suggest the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety.

MGL C140 s131
A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.

 

[mothybee]

democrat

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The courts are still applying and upholding the "broad discretion" and citing Moyer v. Shelburne, despite the new 140-129B and 140-131 provided for in MGL.

 

[drgrant]

This isn't a question on how it's being used or what the law actually says. It's not about whether or not you feel it violates the 2a. This is a question about what YOU think the current law means when it defines Suitability, examples of what would make a person unsuitable as defined by the current law, regardless of whether you agree with the law or not. The law uses words like "clear", "specific", and "risk to public safety". What does it take to fulfill these requirements, in your opinion.

It means only two things in MA:

A- whatever a given issuing authority wants it to mean
B- whatever a court will let them get away with if its contested there.

And A is very similar to B. I mean a bad chief might have a tough time with "I don't like him, I saw him pick his nose once, so we suspended his LTC" but said bad chief could just make up something more legitimate sounding and get away with it.

-Mike

 

[MisterHappy]

Digital manipulation of nasal excreta in a non-private venue, you Honor.

That's not something that we want....think about the children.

 

[swatgig]

The way it was explained to me when I took my safety class, the Chief can find you unsuitable if he thinks that giving you a gun could cause a problem. The example was when there are two feuding neighbors and the police are called every week, but there's never enough to file charges.

The way it works is that a police chief who doesn't think "civilians" should have guns will deny anyone for any reason he (or she) can think up.

Ex girlfriend applied for a restraining order - DENIED
Tenants claim you hit them after you filed to evict them for non-payment - DENIED
Someone stole your gun - REVOKED
Picked up an OUI charge - SUSPENDED
Won't cooperate with a police investigation - REVOKED
Once had an argument with your wife - DENIED

 

[KMM696]

It means only two things in MA:

A- whatever a given issuing authority wants it to mean
B- whatever a court will let them get away with if its contested there.

And A is very similar to B. I mean a bad chief might have a tough time with "I don't like him, I saw him pick his nose once, so we suspended his LTC" but said bad chief could just make up something more legitimate sounding and get away with it.

-Mike

Mike has it exactly right. MA courts will support any assertion even vaguely credible that the chief makes to support denial/suspension/whatever. 'Cause guns...

 

[RImike]

We fight the same battle here in RI where chiefs create arbitrary and burdensome process to get a ccw permit. In my opinion as long as you aren't a prohibited person you are suitable to be licensed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[42!]

All great comments but the question was what do you think the law means? Under the current law what makes a person unsuitable in YOUR opinion. Not what the CoP does. Not how the courts interpret the law. What do you think the law means, or was supposed to mean when the legislature passed it. It's all about what YOU think.

 

[JohnZ]

The way it was explained to me when I took my safety class, the Chief can find you unsuitable if he thinks that giving you a gun could cause a problem. The example was when there are two feuding neighbors and the police are called every week, but there's never enough to file charges.

The way it works is that a police chief who doesn't think "civilians" should have guns will deny anyone for any reason he (or she) can think up.

Ex girlfriend applied for a restraining order - DENIED
Tenants claim you hit them after you filed to evict them for non-payment - DENIED
Someone stole your gun - REVOKED
Picked up an OUI charge - SUSPENDED
Won't cooperate with a police investigation - REVOKED
Once had an argument with your wife - DENIED

Innocent until someone thinks you're guilty or might become guilty.

ETA: I guess this statement pretty much sums up suitability in ma.

engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety

Who writes this crap? Is someone going to take the ltc out and start wreaking havoc with it giving people paper cuts? It's not like they need the ltc to "create a risk to public safety."

 

[FreeWillie]

It means only two things in MA:

A- whatever a given issuing authority wants it to mean
B- whatever a court will let them get away with if its contested there.

And A is very similar to B. I mean a bad chief might have a tough time with "I don't like him, I saw him pick his nose once, so we suspended his LTC" but said bad chief could just make up something more legitimate sounding and get away with it.

-Mike

This x 1,000,000

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

 

[KMM696]

All great comments but the question was what do you think the law means? Under the current law what makes a person unsuitable in YOUR opinion. Not what the CoP does. Not how the courts interpret the law. What do you think the law means, or was supposed to mean when the legislature passed it. It's all about what YOU think.

Well, what Mike wrote above and what I added is what I think the law means.

Was supposed to mean when it was passed? Let me get my psychic hat out....



I believe it was enacted as a tool to ensure uppity MA subjects did not acquire the means to oppose the Commonwealth, thinly disguised behind the fantasy that CoPs are magically endowed with enough precognition to determine who may someday use a pistol for any presumably unacceptable purpose.

No, I don't have an inner cynic.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The problem is that the courts (Moyer v. Shelburne) have held that (a) it is not the role of the court to make a suitability decision, but (b) to determine of the issuing authority felt (s)he had a valid reason, but not to question that conclusion or the validity of the reason beyond the vague standard of "arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion".

The new law puts in a definition of suitabilty, but two magic words were removed from the draft of the 1998 law shortly before passage - "de novo". Had those two magic words survived, the court would have to make its own decision using the statutory language, rather than asking "did the chief feel he had a reason".

The problem is the courts continue to apply the Moyer standard, and generally refuse to look to the statute to determine if the "suitability" determination confirms to the MGL definition. Furthermore, the courts continue to apply the "due process does not apply" as specified in Moyer (heresay evidence being admissable, etc.)

Add in the Chardin decision in which the court held that the deprivation of any right is not protected by the constitution if that deprivation is an administrative, rather than punitive, burden and you might as well stamp "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" on the constitution as applied in MA.

 

[MGnoob]

"In my years of training and experience (insert any character assasination here)"

 

[Scott7980]

What have you done ? What is your past record that you cannot get a license then I will make a decision.

 

[Rider]

So basically you are asking me how i feel about a law that says the local government can negate my Constitutional rights because they don't think i can be trusted with them - even though they acknowledge that BY LAW there is no explicit reason to do so?

Just no.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The problem is that the courts (Moyer v. Shelburne) have held that (a) it is not the role of the court to make a suitability decision, but (b) to determine of the issuing authority felt (s)he had a valid reason, but not to question that conclusion or the validity of the reason beyond the vague standard of "arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion".

The new law puts in a definition of suitabilty, but two magic words were removed from the draft of the 1998 law shortly before passage - "de novo". Had those two magic words survived, the court would have to make its own decision using the statutory language, rather than asking "did the chief feel he had a reason".

The problem is the courts continue to apply the Moyer standard, and generally refuse to look to the statute to determine if the "suitability" determination confirms to the MGL definition. Furthermore, the courts continue to apply the "due process does not apply" as specified in Moyer (heresay evidence being admissable, etc.)

Add in the Chardin decision in which the court held that the deprivation of any right is not protected by the constitution if that deprivation is an administrative, rather than punitive, burden and you might as well stamp "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW" on the constitution as applied in MA.

Yeah, because the mass courts always get it right. The Mass courts HATE the constitution. The courts in this state are one of the biggest problems for rights !

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Mass courts HATE the constitution.

Only parts involving guns or threatening the states revenue. As to the later, note the decisions that is is constitutional to charge $75 to confront your accuser in a traffic case; the decision that parents letting adult children live at home implicitly agree to fund their legal defense; and the decision that retirement accounts must be fully liquidated before having the right to a public defender.

In other areas the MA SJC is very protective. Unlike some states, not only can a BAC not be compelled,, failure to submit to one cannot even be mentioned at trial (the jury is told to draw no conclusions from the lack of a BAC and judge on other factors). In some states it can either be mentioned at trial, or a blood sample can be take by force.

Once a MA suspects says "I want my mouthpiece", it's over. In some other states, the cops can continue to talk to the subjecrt and try to convince him/her to waive the right to an attorney. (A MA cop who was working with a NH PD told me he was shocked when the suspect involved his 5th A rights and his NH contact responded "let me try..." and went into the interview room).

 

[Glockster30]

All great comments but the question was what do you think the law means? Under the current law what makes a person unsuitable in YOUR opinion. Not what the CoP does. Not how the courts interpret the law. What do you think the law means, or was supposed to mean when the legislature passed it. It's all about what YOU think.

We could make up an endless list of what we think unsuitability means, but it's a waste of time since the CoP decides what it means on any given day.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Don't worry the .gov is here to protect and help you. They know what you need and don't need, that old yellow paper is to old.

 

[goodlife30]

Non tax payer

 

[UNSUB]

We prefer "Casino American"

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[je25ff]

Whatever the issuing LEO thinks and, for a select few, what can be demonstrated in court.

 

[42!]

We could make up an endless list of what we think unsuitability means, but it's a waste of time since the CoP decides what it means on any given day.

A list? Sure, why not? It's all pretend anyway because "the CoP decides what it means on any given day".

I'm loving all the comments

A little insight to what I was thinking. I was curious what the average person thought the law meant compared to what the CoP and courts were enforcing. Of course NES is hardly the average person but I had to start someplace and I'm not a big user of forums or FBook.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It means only two things in MA:

A- whatever a given issuing authority wants it to mean
B- whatever a court will let them get away with if its contested there.

And A is very similar to B. I mean a bad chief might have a tough time with "I don't like him, I saw him pick his nose once, so we suspended his LTC" but said bad chief could just make up something more legitimate sounding and get away with it.

-Mike

We could make up an endless list of what we think unsuitability means, but it's a waste of time since the CoP decides what it means on any given day.

The above.

Here's what I think it was to mean as drafted:

- Numerous calls to that address due to issues that although may not have resulted in an arrest or a conviction, convinces said COP that this person is a troublemaker that they will regret if they issue the LTC.
- Knowledge of criminal behavior but not enough to justify an arrest that will stick. Example: Numerous break-ins in my area, PD knew who it was but had no proof (one day they were ratted out by a victim and thus arrested however).

 

[Rider]

All great comments but the question was what do you think the law means? Under the current law what makes a person unsuitable in YOUR opinion. Not what the CoP does. Not how the courts interpret the law. What do you think the law means, or was supposed to mean when the legislature passed it. It's all about what YOU think.

Here is the thing: I can tell you what I think marriage means, and I can tell you what I think a human is, and it turns out no one gives a damn. In fact, I am so burdened by stating these views publicly that I basically don't. (For example, I'd get fired if I stated them at work.) So if I tell you that what I think is suitable is, then why should I expect you or anybody else to care if you disagree with me.

Specifically, I believe that my opinion on suitability is largely irrelevant. I happen to think that a lot of people are chuckleheads who shouldn't be allowed to operate a vehicle or their reproductive organs, but it's not my place to make such determinations.

WRT 2A, it is not my place to determine who should be allowed and who should not be allowed to protect themselves. I simply have to hope that the people I see at the range or elsewhere and scare the shit out of me don't do something stupid. And you know what, every single day, the vast majority of these people I think should wear helmets and not operate heavy machinery manage to not get themselves or other people killed either intentionally or through sheer stupidity.

I guess freedom, for all its many flaws, works pretty well for the most part.

 

[42!]

Here is the thing: I can tell you what I think marriage means, and I can tell you what I think a human is, and it turns out no one gives a damn. In fact, I am so burdened by stating these views publicly that I basically don't. (For example, I'd get fired if I stated them at work.) So if I tell you that what I think is suitable is, then why should I expect you or anybody else to care if you disagree with me.

I can understand a reluctance to express opinions that may have negative results. I'm very active in local government and I simply don't talk about my opinions on gun control, at least not publically and then only with those I feel won't overreact. But if asked I do share my opinions and I think it's important that we all do. It's not about getting anyone to agree but instead it's about learning about others. It's also important for people to know that just because there aren't large crowds chanting a particular view, that doesn't mean that view does not exist. By keeping silent you propagate the view that your opinion does not exist.

Specifically, I believe that my opinion on suitability is largely irrelevant. I happen to think that a lot of people are chuckleheads who shouldn't be allowed to operate a vehicle or their reproductive organs, but it's not my place to make such determinations.

My question on suitability is subtly different from what someone thinks makes a person unsuitable. It's what someone thinks the law says makes a person unsuitable.

WRT 2A, it is not my place to determine who should be allowed and who should not be allowed to protect themselves. I simply have to hope that the people I see at the range or elsewhere and scare the shit out of me don't do something stupid. And you know what, every single day, the vast majority of these people I think should wear helmets and not operate heavy machinery manage to not get themselves or other people killed either intentionally or through sheer stupidity.

And this highlights the single biggest problem gun owners have. Far too many take the position that if it doesn't specifically affect them then they don't want to get involved. Extra requirements by the CoP, no big deal "for me". Healey's actions on the AWB, no big deal "I don't own one". Suitability, "why should I care, I'm friends with the CoP". Staying out of the fight is the same as condoning it. And rest assured, they will eventually get around to something you will care about... but by then it will be too late.

I guess freedom, for all its many flaws, works pretty well for the most part.

For you. Right now. But your freedoms are on the list and if you don't work to maintain them they will be taken from you. Remember those that want to take your 2a right away vastly outnumber those that want you to keep it. The Constitution, in my opinion, is there to protect the minority from the majority. But the majority can change the Constitution. Giving then the freedom to do this by not working to protect it can have only one result.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I can understand a reluctance to express opinions that may have negative results.

Like all those people who didn't talk about voting to make America great again, but just did so in the privacy of the voting booth.

 

[jdgill]

Like all those people who didn't talk about voting to make America great again, but just did so in the privacy of the voting booth.

+1000 !

 

[StevieP]

There are objective standards for what makes one suitable.

What makes one UNsuitable is wholly subjective.

And therein lies the problem.