Ltc denied......overturned by district judge.....then reversed at appeal to mass superior court.

[FalArAk]

Suitability is a pretty big issue for me, having been labeled unsuitable in MA (although under the old "broad discretion" standard), but I'm with the Chief on this one. The home situation has every appearance of being unstable and violent, and it is his home, he choses to be there. Bringing a gun into that picture is just a bad idea. And this isn't about the actions of others. It's about his decision to bring a gun into a home that is already a violent environment. That's his action, not the action of others. And this is an ongoing situation with multiple incidents, it's not some decades old one time event. I see bad things happening if there is a gun in that home, under the current circumstances.

At first I was skeptical, but it seems that everybody that was saying people moving to NH from MA are screwing it up, they were right the whole time

Sad.

 

[MGnoob]

He should be able to get the licenses. He should also be smart enough, not to keep his guns at home.

 

[Mark from ?]

At first I was skeptical, but it seems that everybody that was saying people moving to NH from MA are screwing it up, they were right the whole time

Sad.

They lived under guise of a permission slip granted for their safety and the safety of others....and some have really bought into it and its tough to change them. Its really a doctrine there and some really believe that the LTC system is how it should be.

 

[mcshooter]

Pre bruen was totally unconstitutional and the supreme court allowed that bullshit scheme to live on forever, a good part of my life in MA.

While I was never denied because I was in Republican central MA and got the permission slip.....many others east of me were, and couldn't carry in their own towns, yet I could carry anywhere in their town.

What a crock of shit.

I'm not saying I agree with it...

I'm just going based upon knowledge of the state

 

[FalArAk]

They lived under guise of a permission slip granted for their safety and the safety of others....and some have really bought into it and its tough to change them. Its really a doctrine there and some really believe that the LTC system is how it should be.

Well, maybe NH will get lucky and they don't vote lol

 

[LakeTrout]

Yes but that decision would be completely on him with nobody else involved. And it would be a stupid choice for him to bring a gun into that mad house.

However, since this is MA and someone else has to look at his situation and made a judgement call, I completely understand why the chief would say no.

If he is there chalking off a body in a month after the guy gets his LTC, someone is going to ask questions.

If the guy is the victim of domestic violence, or is likely to be the victim of a crime of violence, he needs a gun more than most.

I believe that the first step he should take is to get the hell away from those other shit bags. But I don’t know his situation. And given their history I don’t know if he’s safe from them if/when he does move.

What is a gun for if not to defend yourself from those exact type of people? He is much more likely to need it than the vast majority of us. And if this results in a justified shooting, so be it. Justified is justified. If this were a woman in a domestic violence situation trying to arm herself, we would be all for it.

 

[cams]

And no one can do that. Sleeping, showering, f'ing, at some point that gun isn't going to be strapped to you body.

Hold my beer…

 

[cams]

This is like if you have a crazy wife that screams f*** Joe Brandon out the window every day, so the chief tells you that you cannot speak anymore. “I’m taking your 1st because people in your house are too loud and obnoxious, so you too will be silenced for life.”

 

[Nick Fury]

I believe that the first step he should take is to get the hell away from those other shit bags. But I don’t know his situation. And given their history I don’t know if he’s safe from them if/when he does move.

I believe we do know his situation. Enough at least. 80 domestic calls in 15 years. Wife has her own category on the crazy/hot matrix. Son is a violent drug dealing 15 year old. Dudes problem solving skills consist of “F*ck this I’m getting a gun!” And then fights the denial? Yeah I think it’s pretty safe to paint a picture with those colors.

 

[LakeTrout]

I believe we do know his situation. Enough at least. 80 domestic calls in 15 years. Wife has her own category on the crazy/hot matrix. Son is a violent drug dealing 15 year old. Dudes problem solving skills consist of “F*ck this I’m getting a gun!” And then fights the denial? Yeah I think it’s pretty safe to paint a picture with those colors.

I can’t tell by this for sure what your position is. But a person who is a victim of domestic violence and/or has a real threat of being the victim of said violence, is exactly the type of person who should have access to a gun for self defense.

Im shocked by the crowd on NES that seems to think the 2A reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, unless they have been repeatedly victimized by violent family members in their own household, shall not be infringed.”

 

[Darksideblues42]

Absolutely, you say all the right things, but when it comes down to it, and your work with Comm2a, you hold back on suitability cases, looking for that perfect defendant. And obviously, if they were perfect they wouldn't be facing suitability. Talking the talk is great, but walking the walk is what matters. I have a lot of respect for you and Comm2a on a number of things, but not this one.

The whole issue with suitability is that someone who has a troubled personal legal history can still be denied and the first circus would uphold the denial all day long.

What we (Comm2A) needs is someone who is more or less without justifiable encumbrance who is being denied on suitability. Like someone who has a verifiable mistaken identity issue, or someone who was truly "wrong place, wrong time" like an Uber driver who unknowingly brought a dealer to a drop that was a sting.

 

[Nick Fury]

I can’t tell by this for sure what your position is. But a person who is a victim of domestic violence and/or has a real threat of being the victim of said violence, is exactly the type of person who should have access to a gun for self defense.

Im shocked by the crowd on NES that seems to think the 2A reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, unless they have been repeatedly victimized by violent family members in their own household, shall not be infringed.”

My position is he should absolutely be allowed to get a gun so they most assuredly kill themselves. As is our God given right. But that does not change the facts I laid out. You seemed to question the pretty clear set of circumstances. It’s the solution that isn’t…

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Decision here:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ma-court-of-appeals/117116870.html

The court made its decision based on the old "suitability" statute. That's the good news. The bad news is that the court also stated "We may disturb the chief's determination that the applicant might create a risk to public safety only if it amounted to an abuse of discretion or was arbitrary and capricious." That seems to state that the court would uphold a denial even if the chief's "reliable, articulable and credible information" turned out to be completely false.

 

[deerdad]

If the guy doesn't ave any charges, he shouldn't be denied his right. It's a tough one because of the home life and either direction sounds like a lose-lose situation BUT if no charges are on file, he's not a prohibited person.

 

[LakeTrout]

My position is he should absolutely be allowed to get a gun so they most assuredly kill themselves. As is our God given right. But that does not change the facts I laid out. You seemed to question the pretty clear set of circumstances. It’s the solution that isn’t…

My experience with domestic violence cases is that the circumstances are less clear than they appear on police reports. But at the end of the day, even that doesn’t matter. He has the right to own a firearm, and he is a perfect example of someone who needs one.

 

[Nick Fury]

Dude just needed to cash out his 40 year state pension, left his wine bag wife and druggie son behind to live a life of luxury in Thailand until his dying day. Not fight the machine for a right that will only end up ending his…

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

It should not be anyone’s decision who gets rights or not. Not a PP, you get your rights.

where is the line drawn when this becomes precedent for future cases?
Just like others have said, bad family now, bad neighbors next, then bad neighborhood, then bad whatever, no LTC for you.
Legit, in 40ish other states this is Not a thing! Why is it okay here? Why is MA so special?

 

[Nick Fury]

My experience with domestic violence cases is that the circumstances are less clear than they appear on police reports. But at the end of the day, even that doesn’t matter. He has the right to own a firearm, and he is a perfect example of someone who needs one.

I agree with the right. But he would end up killing a family member. Or being killed by one. The clarity comes from repetition. Several documented incidents and over 80 reports in 14 years. Come on man it’s pretty safe to draw some conclusions. The dude is a domestic punching bag. A gun ain’t the answer. Getting the f*** out is…

 

[Reptile]

Think of the good news...

99% of NES Green Members are not s f-ed up as this guy.

That 99% would NOT be denied a LTC.

That is pretty good for Massachusetts!!!

Here is a question...

If this guy was YOUR neighbor in the trailer park - would you want him armed???

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

Yes, i want him armed.
What is the difference between this guy having his rights legally and all the gangbangers and criminals with guns already?

 

[LakeTrout]

But he would end up killing a family member. Or being killed by one.

Dont care if he kills a family member in self defense any more than if he kills a stranger in self defense. And the reason he needs a gun is because he might end up being killed by one. That’s not a reason to not have a gun. That’s a reason to have one. I also feel that he needs to get out of there. But I’m also not confident that simply getting out of there means the threat goes away. Either way, he deserves to own a firearm. And in the majority of states in the U.S. he would and this never would have been an issue. But because he lives in a f***tard state, there’s a good chance he’s going to end up being killed by a protected gang member or a violent domestic partner, because he won’t be able to defend himself. And there’s sadly at least some population of people who claim to be 2A supporters in that abortion of a U.S. state that don’t want this person to be able to have a tool that may save his life. One that he has the right to own and carry without any sort of permit from the government.

 

[MisterHappy]

At first I was skeptical, but it seems that everybody that was saying people moving to NH from MA are screwing it up, they were right the whole time

Sad.

it's not new. 40+ years ago, my dad was complaining that Ma**h***s (though that word did not yet exist) were moving to Peterborough and ruining it: "We want sewers!......Wait....why are the taxes going up?!?!"

Admittedly Peterborough was one of the beachheads of the invasions, but...

 

[MisterHappy]

....!!

Here is a question...

If this guy was YOUR neighbor in the trailer park - would you want him armed???

It's not a question of whether I want my neighbor armed, because if I can make that call, on whatever criteria I decide, so can they.

Would you want the dirtbag in the next trailer to YOU saying you can't be armed?

This is why subjective "suitability", from whatever source, is dangerous.

 

[free]

it's not new. 40+ years ago, my dad was complaining that Ma**h***s (though that word did not yet exist) were moving to Peterborough and ruining it: "We want sewers!......Wait....why are the taxes going up?!?!"

Admittedly Peterborough was one of the beachheads of the invasions, but...

No, nice story, but new residents were not asking for sewers. Thank the EPA for them.. sorry dad.

Don’t confuse yourself with the facts.

 

[MisterHappy]

No, nice story, but new residents were not asking for sewers. Thank the EPA for them.. sorry dad.

Don’t confuse yourself with the facts.

well, he's been dead 30 years - so I may have had his causus belli wrong.

But the long-timers there were cranky Yankees, just the same.

 

[seanc]

Have to say. I am pretty surprised by how many here don’t believe that there is a 2A. Or that it is a RIGHT not a privilege.

Just about any other state this would be a non issue. As it is not required to obtain a license at all. Presumably in the majority of states w/o license. He would walk in buy gun, pass wait and background check and take the gun home. It would not make the news or even e questioned. At no point would the “do you live with someone that might be “unsuitable””? Need to be checked off on the form.

But here we have a bunch “Ya, buts” and “his skirt was too high”

 

[Reptile]

It's not a question of whether I want my neighbor armed, because if I can make that call, on whatever criteria I decide, so can they.

Would you want the dirtbag in the next trailer to YOU saying you can't be armed?

This is why subjective "suitability", from whatever source, is dangerous.

A family member once lived next to a violent threatening neighbor.

I would not want that neighbor to own a gun, sorry - not sorry.

 

[42!]

Sure, his son or wife could take an angle grinder to a locked container. They could do a lot of things. People in bad neighborhoods with common break-ins shouldn’t be “allowed” to have guns locked in containers either. They could get stolen by criminals during a break-in. Right?

Hyperbolic bullshit because you can't com up with a valid point. We are not talking about criminals breaking in, we are talking about his chosen "normal" situation.

Well because of precedent that could affect EVERYONE in the state, not just the individual unjustly blocked from his rights.

One can absolutely say this guy shouldn’t be denied his LTC while at the same time wanting a better defendant to push forward. Better in the sense of optics.

My comment goes a lot deeper and refers to conversations/situations you are not aware of. Suffice to say the level of squeaky clean comm2a wants in a suitability case is just never going to happen.

At first I was skeptical, but it seems that everybody that was saying people moving to NH from MA are screwing it up, they were right the whole time

Sad.

I'd love to hear about this since I'm far more pro 2a, conservative, and willing to challenge the gov than anyone I've met here so far. A couple loudmouths drinking beer and going on about what they'd do, only to fold immediately, seems to be more common.

The whole issue with suitability is that someone who has a troubled personal legal history can still be denied and the first circus would uphold the denial all day long.

What do you consider a "troubled" legal history.

What we (Comm2A) needs is someone who is more or less without justifiable encumbrance who is being denied on suitability. Like someone who has a verifiable mistaken identity issue, or someone who was truly "wrong place, wrong time" like an Uber driver who unknowingly brought a dealer to a drop that was a sting.

Mistaken identity would result in a denial based on the other person being PP, so not a suitability issue.
Just being there one time isn't going to get you unsuitable, the very point of suitability is that there is nothing specifically citable for denial. But you will never get a CoP to say, ya there is no reason to deny him, but I'm doing it anyway.

 

[whacko]

Well....

I've learned alot from posting this thread.

The most important thing I've learned is that there a alot more NES members that are proponents of the Massachusetts style licensing system than I ever could have imagined. And many of them are not just proponents of a police chief considering an individuals "suitability" but they are proponents of considering a whole families "suitability". And to top it off.....some these nes members have the balls to still say "I'm strong on the 2a but..."

f***ing sad. Truly f***ing sad.

 

[fencer]

It does not read "Shall not be infringed ... unless some un elected town employee thinks its a bad idea"

Suitability is the biggest crock of shit going. You can't pick up a newspaper or open a local stations website without seeing a story about a cop committing a serious crime, and people think it is ok for one of these guys to be allowed to determine if someone should be allowed a Constitutional right? Based on a feeling? Or intuition? On "experience".
A person is either disqualified or they are not. Period.
This guy is being denied his constitutional rights because some cop thinks his his wife and kid are ass holes? Are you f***ing kidding me?!
I can not, for the life of me, believe that people HERE are in favor of this.