Boston LTC restrictions in light of SCOTUS decision?

Mesatchornug said:
ALL, all; or Boston, all? Regardless, a win for liberty.
Click to expand...
The way I read the email, the FRB was proactively reprinting all restricted licenses for all PDs.

The state, in my experience, doesn't engage in fruitless efforts to undermine a ruling that is as clear as Bruen is. If it happens, they're going to make sure it's on the PDs and that they've washed their hands of it.

This battle, in my opinion, is done.
 
MAJoe said:
Maybe not completely. Read the last section, they require a live fire component which is not required per MGL.
Click to expand...

Then someone eventually should take them to court. At least if Springfield is forced none thats a huge improvement; i think their % of restricted licenses was only topped by Brookline.
 
Live fire is likely to survive scrutinty. Unless there is a minimum standard that they are imposing. I can't remember if they are or not. Either way, this type of requirement would be objective, narrow, and devoid of the need for forming an opinion on the part of the licensing agent.

I think its ridiculous, but it may be tough to eliminate from certain states' licensing regimes.
 
Last edited:
Bladerunner said:
Live fire is likely to survive scrutinty. Unless there is a minimum standard that they are imposing. I can't remember if they are or not. Either way, this type of requirement would be objective, narrow, and devoid of the need for forming an opinion on the part of the licensing agent.

I think its ridiculous, but it may be tough to eliminate from certain states' licensing regime.
Click to expand...
I don't know the live fire test protocol for Springfield.

The Moon Island test (Brookline and formerly Boston) is below. I forget where I sourced the description from, so I can't offer attribution.
Applicants for a License to Carry (and renewal) must have some prior experience with a handgun. Applicants will be expected to demonstrate safe handling and familiarity with a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver. The range personnel are examiners only; they are NOT instructors of civilian applicants.
The applicant will fire a total of 30 rounds at a modified 25-yard bullseye target with 10, 9 and 8 rings. Each round has a value of 10 points. A perfect score would be 300. (30 hits inside the 10 ring.) A hit inside the 9 ring is 9 points. A hit in the 8 ring is 8 points. Any hits outside of the 8 ring are counted as zero points. A minimum of 210 points (70% of 300 points) is required to pass the Range Test. Any applicant may be disqualified for not handling the revolver safely.
Applicants will fire the first 12 rounds from the seven-yard line, double action, with a one-hand hold. The remaining 18 rounds will be fired from the fifteen yard line, either single or double action, with either a one or two hand hold. The choice is made by the applicant.
The course of fire is not that difficult. Within reason, there is no time limit placed on the applicant. The emphasis is on safety. The revolver must be pointed down range at all times. Failure to pass the range test will result in being disqualified and the firearm application to be disapproved.

We can see, that contains a "minimum standard." It seems pretty "objective." It's also kind of arbitrary, but it's shown to be a bit of a lift to convince the 1st Circuit to strike it. There's been conversation of attacking it on grounds of being discriminatory against certain people with disabilities, but I don't think that's actually gone anywhere yet. None of us are getting younger, so it can't hurt to start climbing that hill today.
 
Mesatchornug said:
I don't know the live fire test protocol for Springfield.

The Moon Island test (Brookline and formerly Boston) is below. I forget where I sourced the description from, so I can't offer attribution.
Applicants for a License to Carry (and renewal) must have some prior experience with a handgun. Applicants will be expected to demonstrate safe handling and familiarity with a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver. The range personnel are examiners only; they are NOT instructors of civilian applicants.
The applicant will fire a total of 30 rounds at a modified 25-yard bullseye target with 10, 9 and 8 rings. Each round has a value of 10 points. A perfect score would be 300. (30 hits inside the 10 ring.) A hit inside the 9 ring is 9 points. A hit in the 8 ring is 8 points. Any hits outside of the 8 ring are counted as zero points. A minimum of 210 points (70% of 300 points) is required to pass the Range Test. Any applicant may be disqualified for not handling the revolver safely.
Applicants will fire the first 12 rounds from the seven-yard line, double action, with a one-hand hold. The remaining 18 rounds will be fired from the fifteen yard line, either single or double action, with either a one or two hand hold. The choice is made by the applicant.
The course of fire is not that difficult. Within reason, there is no time limit placed on the applicant. The emphasis is on safety. The revolver must be pointed down range at all times. Failure to pass the range test will result in being disqualified and the firearm application to be disapproved.

We can see, that contains a "minimum standard." It seems pretty "objective." It's also kind of arbitrary, but it's shown to be a bit of a lift to convince the 1st Circuit to strike it. There's been conversation of attacking it on grounds of being discriminatory against certain people with disabilities, but I don't think that's actually gone anywhere yet. None of us are getting younger, so it can't hurt to start climbing that hill today.
Click to expand...
It is arbitrary and the interptetation of what is an acceptable standard would not survive the Bruen test, given that establishing said standard is an application of subjective reasoning.

If all applicants must complete a live fire component along wth the 4 hour safety course, then such a requirement would meet the conditions laid out by Thomas.

Of course, all this is without consideration of the text and history test, hich wouud in theory strike down all this extra crap.
 
Last edited:
Mesatchornug said:
We can see, that contains a "minimum standard." It seems pretty "objective." It's also kind of arbitrary, but it's shown to be a bit of a lift to convince the 1st Circuit to strike it. There's been conversation of attacking it on grounds of being discriminatory against certain people with disabilities, but I don't think that's actually gone anywhere yet. None of us are getting younger, so it can't hurt to start climbing that hill today.
Click to expand...
Already been done (but pre-Bruen): MACNUTT vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER OF BOSTON, 30 Mass. App. Ct. 632

Range test upheld; test fee struck down.
 
Bladerunner said:
If all applicants must complete a live fire component along wth the 4 hour safety course, then such a requirement would meet the conditions laid out by Thomas.
Click to expand...
Are police also subject to this same testing, in order to get their LTC? Or are they exempt? Take away any exemption if you want to fight this.
 
I was under the impression that Boston had done away with the Moon Island portion of the licensing hoops? While it was relatively easy and everyone there was super nice, it was indeed discriminatory. You can’t have someone drive you out there so you need to have a valid drivers license and a car or borrow one. Also, no public transportation goes to Moon Island. Can anyone think of a group of people that a requirement such as this might effect disproportionately?? It was just another barrier to entry.
 
Tinkermatic said:
I was under the impression that Boston had done away with the Moon Island portion of the licensing hoops? While it was relatively easy and everyone there was super nice, it was indeed discriminatory. You can’t have someone drive you out there so you need to have a valid drivers license and a car or borrow one. Also, no public transportation goes to Moon Island. Can anyone think of a group of people that a requirement such as this might effect disproportionately?? It was just another barrier to entry.
Click to expand...
Also, this is the minimum to possess a firearm. So you have to pay for additional classes before you can get a firearm to train with, simply because you're new and don't have friends to keep training you?
 
X14478 said:
This may not be a popular opinion, but as someone who lives in the city of Boston and had to take a live test. I am completely in favor of the live fire test, of the five people took the test on the day I did only two passed. Two failed because they could not handle the firearm safely, range officer took both their firearms away and sent them back to the classroom . The third gentleman failed because he could not hit the target at all. After seeing this I was completely in favor of the live fire test, I don’t want anyone Who cannot safely handle a firearm and hit a target on the street with me. Yes Boston police have to take the same test as a civilian, when I went to renew my license there was an officer there that needed to renew his LTC he would have to wait three months for a live fire test , but he was told he can carry on his badge.
Click to expand...
Needing a LTC should not even be a thing and you are cool with not only a LTC but a practical test?
[bs]
 
Bladerunner said:
It is arbitrary and the interptetation of what is an acceptable standard would not survive the Bruen test, given that establishing said standard is an application of subjective reasoning.

If all applicants must complete a live fire component along wth the 4 hour safety course, then such a requirement would meet the conditions laid out by Thomas.

Of course, all this is without consideration of the text and history test, hich wouud in theory strike down all this extra crap.
Click to expand...
It's just too ripe for abuse by red town chiefs.
Five out of six in the ten ring at 25 yards or no license for you.
 
I don’t have a problem with the RI model….buy w/e you want and keep it at home no questions asked. You wanna carry, you need to prove you can hit what your aiming at. The test is not that hard and quite frankly you have no business carrying if you can’t hit the target consistently.
 
X14478 said:
This may not be a popular opinion, but as someone who lives in the city of Boston and had to take a live test. I am completely in favor of the live fire test, of the five people took the test on the day I did only two passed. Two failed because they could not handle the firearm safely, range officer took both their firearms away and sent them back to the classroom . The third gentleman failed because he could not hit the target at all. After seeing this I was completely in favor of the live fire test, I don’t want anyone Who cannot safely handle a firearm and hit a target on the street with me. Yes Boston police have to take the same test as a civilian, when I went to renew my license there was an officer there that needed to renew his LTC he would have to wait three months for a live fire test , but he was told he can carry on his badge.
Click to expand...
Mase32 said:
I don’t have a problem with the RI model….buy w/e you want and keep it at home no questions asked. You wanna carry, you need to prove you can hit what your aiming at. The test is not that hard and quite frankly you have no business carrying if you can’t hit the target consistently.
Click to expand...
I used to think this way when I was a new LTC holder but have since changed my view. I 100% agree that people should get training/train regularly with their firearms BUT it should not be controlled/mandated by the government.
And who measures the level of proficiency someone has with a firearm? And how do you measure that proficiency to now deem them "safe/proficient to carry a firearm"?? So if someone attends a class and fires a box or 2 of ammo they're now highly qualified?? Do you mandate that they take 12 classes and x amount of rounds fired in order to exercise a right?
 
X14478 said:
This may not be a popular opinion, but as someone who lives in the city of Boston and had to take a live test. I am completely in favor of the live fire test, of the five people took the test on the day I did only two passed. Two failed because they could not handle the firearm safely, range officer took both their firearms away and sent them back to the classroom . The third gentleman failed because he could not hit the target at all. After seeing this I was completely in favor of the live fire test, I don’t want anyone Who cannot safely handle a firearm and hit a target on the street with me. Yes Boston police have to take the same test as a civilian, when I went to renew my license there was an officer there that needed to renew his LTC he would have to wait three months for a live fire test , but he was told he can carry on his badge.
Click to expand...

When I took my LTC course, it had a live-fire component: the instructor loaded the four of us into his car and drove us to a little indoor range on the North Shore, where he let us each put about 20 rounds out of (IIRC) a SIG Mosquito. Of the four of us, I was the only one who'd touched a firearm before that day. He set the target at about ten feet, and I was the only one who got ANY shots in the black (all but one, actually. Ahem).

Would it have been nice if those guys had been proficient with firearms? Sure. Are there any realistic opportunities for a non-LTC holder to gain that proficiency before they take the LTC class? Nope. Not unless they've got very patient friends with LTCs. In this state, most have to get the LTC SO THAT they can learn to get good with their gat.

No way would I ever say that those other guys with me that day, who couldn't shoot at all, should not have the right to keep and bear arms. No way. They have that right, regardless of my feelz.
 
Mesatchornug said:
Also, this is the minimum to possess a firearm. So you have to pay for additional classes before you can get a firearm to train with, simply because you're new and don't have friends to keep training you?
Click to expand...
Precisely!
As a lefty, with limited wheel gun experience, I took it upon myself to pay for a “Moon Island Practice” one-on-one at MFS. I grew up with, and around firearms so I’m a decent shot, I was worried about manipulation and proper loading/unloading of a platform (especially in front of the PoPo) I had only shot once before. I had the extra time and money, many don’t. Make live fire part of the $100 licensing fee if they’re going to keep it. As @X14478 said, there’s probably some people out there with zero experience that may need some extra help, but that shouldn’t be an immediate disqualifier. Also, shooting in front of the police is a bit stressful, so basing pass/fail on a single interaction seems silly. If the only people who should be allowed to have guns are those that are already comfortable with guns, then we need expanded access to guns in supervised situations. Similar to adult cooking classes or other continuing education programs.
 
I think the difference here is 2 things. The way RI does it is pretty black and white. You gotta hit a target so many times at a distance. No one handed or DA only bs.
Also I’m not advocating that people cannot own firearms. I’m saying if you want to carry, learn how to shoot. You can easily do that without a carry permit.
Edit- the bigger issue is you need a license to purchase anything in mass.
 
Mase32 said:
I think the difference here is 2 things. The way RI does it is pretty black and white. You gotta hit a target so many times at a distance. No one handed or DA only bs.
Also I’m not advocating that people cannot own firearms. I’m saying if you want to carry, learn how to shoot. You can easily do that without a carry permit.
Edit- the bigger issue is you need a license to purchase anything in mass.
Click to expand...
What about the holstering and drawing that’s part of physically carrying a firearm? Does the target with the X amount of hits measure proficiency in safely holstering and properly drawing from concealment?
 
No more like when you go get your CDL. That statie knows damn well you can’t drive for shit, but if you demonstrate that you can safely operate the vehicle in his presence he gives you a CDL to hone your skills while gaining experience. Kindve same mentality here.
 
Mase32 said:
I don’t have a problem with the RI model….buy w/e you want and keep it at home no questions asked. You wanna carry, you need to prove you can hit what your aiming at. The test is not that hard and quite frankly you have no business carrying if you can’t hit the target consistently.
Click to expand...

Lol you are not very bright if you think the test has anything to do with this, thats very naive and foolish, to put it mildly.

Not to mention, quite frankly 90% of carrying a gun on a daily basis has absolutely nothing to do with shooting.

Not that I would ever want it (I am against all state mandated training to own and carry guns) but if I was told I had to design a state mandated course for carry applicants to pass, most of it wouldnt be about shooting. It would be about all the other shit you should know.

These shooting test requirements arent about public safety or any similar rubrics. You should know better. Anytime you see a trash grade shooting test, the test is there as obstructionism not to promote public safety.

Things like the mere existence of a shooting tests deter the total amount of applicants heavily.
 
drgrant said:
Lol you are not very bright if you think the test has anything to do with this, thats very naive and foolish, to put it mildly.

Not to mention, quite frankly 90% of carrying a gun on a daily basis has absolutely nothing to do with shooting.

Not that I would ever want it (I am against all state mandated training to own and carry guns) but if I was told I had to design a state mandated course for carry applicants to pass, most of it wouldnt be about shooting. It would be about all the other shit you should know.

These shooting test requirements arent about public safety or any similar rubrics. You should know better. Anytime you see a trash grade shooting test, the test is there as obstructionism not to promote public safety.

Things like the mere existence of a shooting tests deter the total amount of applicants heavily.
Click to expand...
Exactly, good points!

The most cogent post you have made lately, thank you.
 
Mase32 said:
I don’t have a problem with the RI model….buy w/e you want and keep it at home no questions asked. You wanna carry, you need to prove you can hit what your aiming at. The test is not that hard and quite frankly you have no business carrying if you can’t hit the target consistently.
Click to expand...

Ok Groomer.
 
I’m about to throw up in my mouth… Fees, live fire tests, licensing officers challenging your reason for issuance, pleading to the chief etc … it’s only to discourage you from exercising your right to bear arms. Think about how dumb that bold part sounds.
 
LTC holders need live fire testing so they can be sure to just hit attackers in the leg and not center mass, which would likely kill them.
 

Similar threads

LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
269
M1911
M1911
MA Out of state LTC
Replies
19
Views
364
drgrant
drgrant
LTC renewal question
Replies
4
Views
164
Sam P
S
BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Extremists Riot in Boston Area
Replies
16
Views
970
Bfatz
Bfatz
Anyone run this light
Replies
10
Views
551
jkelly1229
J
Back
Top Bottom