Donnell case was appealed by the state

I read at some point that the big omnibus MA anti-gun law that took effect 8/1 included some protections for non-resident carry. I know it's a huge mess of a law, and there have been 'leventy billion posts about it on multiple threads.

If that was actually included in the final version, was it just an attempt to nullify the Donnell case?

 
I read at some point that the big omnibus MA anti-gun law that took effect 8/1 included some protections for non-resident carry. I know it's a huge mess of a law, and there have been 'leventy billion posts about it on multiple threads.

If that was actually included in the final version, was it just an attempt to nullify the Donnell case?

This and to head off a challenge to the new non-res requirements.
The new law allows non-res to carry while driving through the state but restricts it to within you direct control, while in your vehicle. So no stops, and when you're out of the car you must conform to MA laws including the need for a carry license.
So your 2a rights don't "end" at the boarder, they are just ridiculously restricted.

The new non-res allows only for specific reasons and ALP isn't one of them,

They are hoping to head off the challenge by saying "yes of course you can carry, but there are restrictions"
 
Decision is out, Donnell's charges dismissed!

To be consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commonwealth's nonresident firearm licensing scheme cannot vest an official with the discretion to deny a license to a qualified applicant. The defendant was charged under a firearm licensing scheme that did just that. This manner of firearm restriction is no longer permissible. Bruen, supra. Accordingly, the allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed.


 
Our holding today does not, as the Commonwealth suggests, preclude it from requiring firearm licenses for persons within its borders.
Donnell got off the hook, but it doesn't change anything for out of state people today. The court is fine with the current "shall-issue" licensing for non-residents.
 
Donnell got off the hook, but it doesn't change anything for out of state people today. The court is fine with the current "shall-issue" licensing for non-residents.
One step at a time. We need to build the scaffolding that lets us "now do licensing." Hopefully, footnote 9 (IIRC) in NYSRPA v Bruen helps guide us down that path.
 
This was a harmless case for the SJC:
  • The SJC was able to let a non-dirtbag off the hook, so no problem there
  • The decision only applies to pre-Bruen arrests
  • It gave the SJC an opportunity to show mercy, and appear fair and balanced, but without setting any precedent that would weaken the grip MA gun laws have on the commoners
I suspect that if the decision would change the rules of the game going forward, it would have been different. Look at the convoluted logic in Cornelius that estabished that the 60 day window for persons moving into MA does not apply to high capacity firearms (and yeah, I know there is no legal import of high capacity magazines).

The appellant is lucky the SJC did not rule that Bruen did not apply since he had not demonstrated he would have been turned down for a non-resident may issue LTC.
 
Last edited:
This was a harmless case for the SJC:

The SJC was able to let a non-dirtbag off the hook, so no problem there
The decision only applies to pre-Bruen arrests
It gave the SJC an opportunity to show mercy, and appear fair and balanced, but without setting any precedent that would weaken the grip MA gun laws have on the commoners

I suspect that if the decision would change the rules of the game going forward, it would have been different. Look at the convoluted logic in Cornelius that estabished that the 60 day window for persons moving into MA does not apply to high capacity firearms (and yeah, I know there is no legal import of high capacity magazines).

The appellant is lucky the SJC did not rule that Bruen did not apply since he had not demonstrated he would have been turned down for a non-resident may issue LTC.
I hear you. This court also decided Canjura. We can't get overly excited, but we can see that they have (again!) done the right thing.
 
I hear you. This court also decided Canjura. We can't get overly excited, but we can see that they have (again!) done the right thing.
Done the right thing is subjective

They found an old law that doesn’t matter anymore unconstitutional… how did they find in Marquis ?

So it’s really just a whole nothing burger to anyone but Donnell.
 
Done the right thing is subjective

They found an old law that doesn’t matter anymore unconstitutional… how did they find in Marquis ?

So it’s really just a whole nothing burger to anyone but Donnell.
I don't know that it's subjective.

Would it be better if they did right in more cases? Absolutely.

And Donnell isn't being wrongly imprisoned for handgun possession. That's a start.
 
I wonder what happened with his OUI case? Is he now a Misdefelon? Or is that no longer a thing in MA?
First offense OUIs in MA are generally disposed with a CWOF and requirement the defendant enroll in a 24D alcohol education program.

CWOF for OUI count as convictions for CDL purposes and predicateoffenses for future OUIs, but do not count as misdafelonies.
 
I don't know about how the non resident LTC works under the new law, but it seems that a CWOF would give grounds for a denial of a resident LTC application under the ever flexible "suitability" standard.

Or am I over thinking it?

First offense OUIs in MA are generally disposed with a CWOF and requirement the defendant enroll in a 24D alcohol education program.

CWOF for OUI count as convictions for CDL purposes and predicateoffenses for future OUIs, but do not count as misdafelonies.
 
I don't know about how the non resident LTC works under the new law, but it seems that a CWOF would give grounds for a denial of a resident LTC application under the ever flexible "suitability" standard.

Or am I over thinking it?
It absolutely can.

Although, this ruling might change things. Just because it says it's only for the old non-res, doesn't mean it can't be cited to support an argument that if something is unconstitutional for a non-res LTC then it's obviously unconstitutional for a res LTC
 
How is the new NR licensing scheme different than the old NR licensing scheme? Is the new scheme now shall issue? Last time I applied I still had to list a purpose.
 
How is the new NR licensing scheme different than the old NR licensing scheme? Is the new scheme now shall issue? Last time I applied I still had to list a purpose.
The new scheme may defines a handful of acceptable purposes...I wonder if this isn't a bigger deal than it sounds. Even if the NR-LTC is "shall issue" it may not be sufficient when "protection of self" isn't a valid reason for issuance.
 
The new scheme may defines a handful of acceptable purposes...I wonder if this isn't a bigger deal than it sounds. Even if the NR-LTC is "shall issue" it may not be sufficient when "protection of self" isn't a valid reason for issuance.
Thx. I'll have to take a look at the new scheme. I thought it still required a valid purpose from a list as you noted.
 
Two versions of the application come up through a search:

-- version #1 says Reason(s) for requesting the issuance of a card or license:  Unrestricted  Target & Hunting  Sporting  Employment Use lines below to indicate the detailed reason(s) you are requesting an unrestricted LTC; use a separate sheet of paper if necessary.
-- version #2 says Please explain why you are requesting a license: Use lines below to indicate the detailed reason(s) you are requesting an unrestricted LTC; use a separate sheet of paper if necessary.

Version #2 appears to be the current version.
 
Section 131F. A temporary license to carry firearms, rifles or shotguns or feeding devices or ammunition therefor, within the commonwealth, shall be issued by the colonel of state police, or persons authorized by him, to a nonresident or any person not falling within the jurisdiction of a local licensing authority or to an alien that resides outside the commonwealth for purposes of firearms competition if it appears that the applicant is not a prohibited person and is not determined unsuitable to be issued a license as set forth in section 131.

So there is still suitability.

Under 131: The licensing authority shall deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on reliable, articulable 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 a risk of danger to self or others. Upon denial of an application or renewal of a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the applicant in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (e). Upon revoking or suspending a license based on a determination of unsuitability, the licensing authority shall notify the holder of a license in writing setting forth the specific reasons for the determination in accordance with paragraph (f). The determination of unsuitability shall be subject to judicial review under said paragraph (f).

So seems odd they still ask for what purpose you want the NR LTC.
 
Here's the related herald article that came out an hour ago for those without a subscription:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The state’s highest court has issued a pair of decisions regarding the rights of nonresidents to carry firearms through the Bay State, finding that, while some of the commonwealth’s old licensing rules were in fact unconstitutional, changes made to the law in the wake of a major 2022 Supreme Court decisions pass the legal sniff test.

The decisions issued Tuesday — Commonwealth v. Dean F. Donnell, Jr. and Commonwealth v. Philip J. Marquis — both deal with charges levied against nonresident gun owners found to be unlawfully in possession of firearms after police responded to a car crash scene in Massachusetts, and the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen on the state’s relevant gun laws.

According to the court, a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm filed in the Donnell case failed to meet constitutional scrutiny because the underlying law allowed the Colonel of the Massachusetts State Police too much discretion on who could and could not possess a firearm, regardless of their suitability otherwise.

In such a case, according to the court, the issue with the law lies with its wording, specifically the “may issue” phrase prohibited after the Bruen decision, and because “it vested impermissible discretion in the licensing authority to grant or deny firearm licenses to nonresidents.”

“We hold that the version of the Commonwealth’s nonresident firearm licensing scheme in effect at the time of the offense violates the Second Amendment. Accordingly, as the defendant was charged with violating (the law) after the Supreme Court issued Bruen, he is entitled to dismissal of that charge,” Associate Justice Frank Gaziano wrote for the court.

In deciding Bruen, according to Gaziano, “The Supreme Court indicated that such discretionary ‘may issue’ firearm licensing regimes are presumptively invalid.”

Marquis faced a similar charge that came well after the Bruen decision and after the Bay State updated its firearms laws to remove instances of “may issue” and replaced them with “shall issue” rules.

A lower court originally agreed with the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, noting the Commonwealth had failed to “meet its burden under Bruen” by demonstrating that the state’s nonresident rules were “consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation” and therefore still constitutional.

According to the Supreme Judicial Court, that constitutional challenge to the state’s updated nonresident licensing scheme fails because the law was changed to remove discretion from licensing authorities, and Marquis’ motion to see his charges undone fails because he never attempted to secure a license to carry before he was charged for not having one.

“The defendant has standing to bring an as-applied challenge to the Commonwealth’s nonresident firearm licensing scheme if — but only if — the defendant applied for (and was denied) a license under that scheme,” the judge wrote. “Because the defendant did not do so, he lacks standing to bring an as-applied challenge to the Commonwealth’s nonresident firearm licensing scheme.”
 
I read at some point that the big omnibus MA anti-gun law that took effect 8/1 included some protections for non-resident carry. I know it's a huge mess of a law, and there have been 'leventy billion posts about it on multiple threads.

If that was actually included in the final version, was it just an attempt to nullify the Donnell case?

 
Back
Top Bottom