Great job. Curious about this case, Just so I can understand better
The state now will just not outright reject these cases as I assume they did before?
They will still be federal prohibited persons?
So now it is possible to get the right in MA back but you still would not be licensed federally? AKA no license for these people
Next step is going after the federal side?
Below is from the case.
In its findings of fact, the Board opined that each Plaintiff had taken responsibility for hisoffense, rarely drank alcohol at present, was responsible in his use of firearms, and had presented credible testimony that “suggested a favorable determination of suitability.” The Board 4nonetheless concluded that it could do nothing to change the fact that the Plaintiffs would remain prohibited from carrying firearms under federal law, which, in turn, rendered them unsuitable to possess firearms under Massachusetts law
In the case at bar, t he Board determined that the Plaintiffs are, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to carry firearms; and it indicated that it was prepared to restore their rights to do so but for the ATF’s disabling interpretation of Section 921(a)(20). To concede such constraint in the realm of firearms right restoration is a matter of no small irony, given that Congress designed Section 921(a)(20) to defer to the states’ judgment on this very issue. In the present case, however, it is the Board that has effectively deferred to a federal agency’s cramped construction of its authority. Such a somersault of logic turns the clear intent of Congress on its head, and frustrates the very purpose that animates Section 921(a)(20). It is the considered judgment of the Court, therefore, that the right to bear arms is a civil right within the ambit of Section 921(a)(20); and a decision by the Board pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 130B that a convicted person who lost
In the case at bar, t he Board determined that the Plaintiffs are, in fact, sufficiently trustworthy to carry firearms; and it indicated that it was prepared to restore their rights to do so but for the ATF’s disabling interpretation of Section 921(a)(20). To concede such constraint in the realm of firearms right restoration is a matter of no small irony, given that Congress designed Section 921(a)(20) to defer to the states’ judgment on this very issue. In the present case, however, it is the Board that has effectively deferred to a federal agency’s cramped construction of its authority. Such a somersault of logic turns the clear intent of Congress on its head, and frustrates the very purpose that animates Section 921(a)(20). It is the considered judgment of the Court, therefore, that the right to bear arms is a civil right within the ambit of Section 921(a)(20); and a decision by the Board pursuant to G.L. c. 140, § 130B that a convicted person who lost