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

[MickeyD’s]

View attachment 983647


This is what I wore in town last weekend when it was nice out.

During my walk through town I passed a guy who looked like this...
View attachment 983648

We nodded to each other as we passed each other.

I am known to the police to wear a SWAT outfit.

They consider me "eccentric" but harmless.

No need to disarm me.

Doesn’t matter

 

[Reptile]

If he is a TDA, call ICE
If not, call the cops
Document the hassassment
Get an RO/HPO. Let the cops know what is going on

I am speaking hypothetically.

My family member who did at one time have trouble with a neighbor had the situation resolved when the neighbor eventually moved away.

There was never any violence but the neighbor would always curse at him when he saw him. He was mentally ill.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Sounds like this poor guy needs a gun to protect himself from the crazy people he lives with.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I guess we don't trust in God so much.

Someone needs a name change to In God But Also Moar Lawrz We Trust.

 

[namedpipes]

MCE Framingham?

I knew one chick that ended up in there. But I lived on the proper side of the fence.

However the place is divided into three zones. North Ham, good. South Ham, bad. DMZ Ham, well... don't walk unarmed after dark but otherwise... OK ish. I was in the DMZ.

 

[Bigfudge16]

Give this man his license. If on his own he is suitable and we have proper storage laws then what is the problem?

I seriously question this guys judgement bringing a firearm into what sounds like a volitile situation.

The right thing to do is take the sane kid and get out.

But this guilt by association is a really a BAD precedent. If this stands why is unreasonable to disarm a whole apartment complex as there may be bad resident in that building?

This is exactly where my mind goes. If the applicant is deemed responsible and storage laws exist then what's the difference between crazy family in your house or a crazy guy next door? One more locked door at best?

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Give this man his license. If on his own he is suitable and we have proper storage laws then what is the problem?

I have to wonder if the fact that he lives (lived?) in proximity of a private day/boarding school, K-9, had any influence on the CoP.

 

[Mark from ?]

Massachusetts is absolutely not shall issue post-Bruen. I’m not sure why people keep saying this. It’s much better than it used to be, but not shall issue.

Suitability was codified in the new gun law. Plenty of people are still being denied and suspended on subjective suitability for issues that do not arise to prohibited person status.

Got a cite for that in the new law where it specifically says it?

I could care less Im not there, and not really up on the text of the law...... but if you do....and MA voted it in for themselves.....well, I guess they are extra special stupid and gave their post Bruen rights away.

So essentially.....what the Chief says about your right to own a gun is the law of MA now and we can end this discussion.

 

[Mark from ?]

I have to wonder if the fact that he lives (lived?) in proximity of a private day/boarding school, K-9, had any influence on the CoP.

Yup....you live near a school...no guns for you. All good....bro.....WTF!

You guys really do grasp at fxcking straws to validate this Chief's anti 2A behavior in the name of safety.

Totally indoctrinated sheep.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Yup....you live near a school...no guns for you. All good....bro.....WTF!

You guys really reach out for this safety stuff to validate this Chief's anti 2A behavior.

I’m not validating the former chief’s opinion at all. Just wondering if the $chool had been an influence on reason for denial. It should not have been.

 

[Lank]

Because he personally has never broken a law. His family has

Thanks, I completely missed that. Reading comprehension fail

 

[whacko]

Thanks, I completely missed that. Reading comprehension fail

It's really the basis of the whole discussion. Chief denied his ltc due to his wife and son being idiots when he personally has never been charged with anything.

 

[Mark from ?]

I’m not validating the former chief’s opinion at all. Just wondering if the $chool had been an influence on reason for denial. It should not have been.

Im really not trying to shit on you....but again....his feelings one way or the other are not valid, need to be discussed, etc.......if we are indeed talking post Bruen

His standard would be PP deny....not a PP shall issue. Why he did what he did? Who the hell cares....its not constitutional. Its not OK to deny someone's rights based on feelings of what MIGHT happen. No need to even discuss........ because asking why is trying to find validation for what he did.

Unless in the new law there is codified suitability, and if that is the case this whole conversation is moot and the Chief is your master and
you are living in pre Bruen days again. Show me the cite and I'll go on my merry way.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The suitabilty standard was changed, not removed. The new standard now requires a finding of risk of violence from the prospective licensee. The old standard was did the chief have a legitimate reason, any reason, to deny - with an almost insurmountable "arbitrary, capriciou and abuse of discretion" requirement to prevail on appeal. We were screwed in the second to last gun law update when the words "De Novo" were stricken from the language involving a district court appeal - and nobody on either side is telling what legislator pulled those magic two words.

All it means is that the issuing authority has to change the phrasing to include "risk of violence". The two central issues in this case appear to be "If the applicant going to present a risk (and uncharged behavior was presented as evidence), and is his possession of firearms lilkely to present a risk of violence by allowing unsuitable people living with him access to the weaponry? The later is easier to refute; the former almost impossible under standards that do not provide for discovery or require an actual judicial finding of unlawful behavior on the part of the applicant.

The game for the applicat remains the same: "Your honer, I am asking you to bet your reputation on me not screwing up by finding for me on this appeal".

The MA attitude seems to be "You have the right to bear arms, but not a right to the license that allows you to do so".

 

[PappyM3]

The suitabilty standard was changed, not removed. The new standard now reuqires a finding of risk of violence from the prospective licensee. The old standard was did the chief have a legitimate reason, any reason, to deny - with an almost insurmountable "arbitrary, capriciou and abuse of discretion" clause. We were screwed in the second to last gun law update when the words "De Novo" were stricken from the language involving a district court appeal - and nobody on either side is telling what legislator pulled those magic two words.

All it mean is that the issuing authority has to change the phrasing to include "risk of violence". The two central issues in this case appear to be "If the applicant going to present a risk (and uncharged behavior was presented as evidence), and is his possession of firearms lilkely to present a risk of violence by allowing unsuitable people living with him access to the weaponry? The later is easier to refute; the former almost impossible under standards that do not provide for discovery or require an actual judicial finding of unlawful behavior on the part of the applicant.
…

What are the chances of challenging the constitutionality of the state treating denials as trivial things, where the “due” process involves no discovery, permitting hearsay, rumors, and non-charged alleged actions that are in a report but have not been proven, rather than treated like the extremely serious revocation of an enumerated right that it is?

…

The MA attitude seems to be "You have the right to bear arms, but not a right to the license that allows you to do so".

Right, according to the state, it’s lawful to own a pistol in your home without an LTC. Can’t buy one, but ammo, and there’s nothing in MGL supporting the state’s assertion…

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I hope not.

But, if I did have enemies or people who wanted to hurt me or my family - I would want them disarmed.

If you had a violent neighbor who threatened to kill your family - would you want them them to have a gun?

This is the fallacy of the veneer of civilization. More rules and more government will make you safer just like all the new gun laws are making Springfield safer.

 

[WJ406]

Got a cite for that in the new law where it specifically says it?

I could care less Im not there, and not really up on the text of the law...... but if you do....and MA voted it in for themselves.....well, I guess they are extra special stupid and gave their post Bruen rights away.

So essentially.....what the Chief says about your right to own a gun is the law of MA now and we can end this discussion.

MGL 140 s 121F(k)

A licensing authority shall deny any application for a permit, card or license under sections 122, 122B, 122D, 129B, 131 or 131F, or renewal thereof, to a person the licensing authority determines to be unsuitable to hold a permit, card or license. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on reliable, articulable and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a permit, card or license, the applicant may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to themselves or others.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What are the chances of challenging the constitutionality of the state treating denials as trivial things, where the “due” process involves no discovery, permitting hearsay, rumors, and non-charged alleged actions that are in a report but have not been proven, rather than treated like the extremely serious revocation of an enumerated right that it is?

This would probably have to be a federal case with a sympathetic plaintiff.

The issue is simple - Denial of a constitutionally protected right based on <something>. The best "somethings" would be findings of non-guilt, non-charged behavior, etc. There is no other constitutional right that can be administratively denied or revoked.

 

[Mark from ?]

MGL 140 s 121F(k)

Well....case closed and thank you. Here I am arguing tooth and nail shall issue post Bruen........and MA went and voted themselves back to pre Bruen.

Sorry I'm absolutely wrong then, I had no idea anyone could be that stupid and vote themselves backwards into bondage after the SC freed them.

Chief is within his right to deny with powers given to him by citizens of MA. Court in MA should have upheld his decision and it shouldn't have even went
to the higher courts.

Certainly not agreeing with it....but its passed law in MA right now........live under the Chiefs boot as voted for, and Chief certainly can argue for
a public safety issue if this dude brings a gun into his home under shit show conditions.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Well....case closed and thank you.

Chief is within his right to deny for any reason and your living pre Bruen again in MA.

Bruen changed some things - like the concept of a restriction no longer exists. Insufficient to solve the problem, but one small step in the right direction. The recent law we got was terrible and a legislative response to "do something to neutralize Bruen", but no where near as complete as the NY "concealed carry improvement act" which effectively turned all carry permits into that state to possession permits.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Bruen changed some things - like the concept of a restriction no longer exists. Insufficient to solve the problem, but one small step in the right direction. The recent law we got was terrible and a legislative response to "do something to neutralize Bruen", but no where near as complete as the NY "concealed carry improvement act" which effectively turned all carry permits into that state to possession permits.

And yet both laws still stand in direct defiance to the constitution and the Supreme Court which refuses to grant cert to two cases which would help resolve the issue.

 

[In God We Trust]

The Massachusetts conundrum. I paid off my nice house, in a nice town before I retired. My daughter and grandson are here. They are in a situation where they can't move. I would LOVE to move someplace sane, but family comes first. In all instances. No exceptions.

Gun rights are important, VERY important, but in the overall scheme of things, probably 4th or 5th on the list of my life's priorities.

YMMV

Same. I’m mostly stuck here until my mother dies and my kids grow up. I also have friends I’d hate to leave behind, but I simply can’t afford to live in this commie hole on my retired income. For what I pay in rent here, I could have a really nice place somewhere down south.

 

[Mark from ?]

Bruen changed some things - like the concept of a restriction no longer exists. Insufficient to solve the problem, but one small step in the right direction. The recent law we got was terrible and a legislative response to "do something to neutralize Bruen", but no where near as complete as the NY "concealed carry improvement act" which effectively turned all carry permits into that state to possession permits.

Does it matter.......its suitability........not shall issue. They will use it against gun owners and stretch its limits to the max.

I argue shall issue is cut and dry, follows a basic standard of PP/Non PP......and it is.

Suitability clear as 20 year old unpumped septic tank water and about as shitty. Your state voted to give 350 something individuals in MA the right to deny with whatever whimsical bullshit regarding safety they feel is valid with absolutely no standards. 350 something different itterations on who has rights and who doesn't.

 

[Mark from ?]

And yet both laws still stand in direct defiance to the constitution and the Supreme Court which refuses to grant cert to two cases which would help resolve the issue.

DIsturbing AF.......

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Same. I’m mostly stuck here until my mother dies and my kids grow up. I also have friends I’d hate to leave behind, but I simply can’t afford to live in this commie hole on my retired income. For what I pay in rent here, I could have a really nice place somewhere down south.

I have been on a fixed income for the last 20 years now and it is impossible to keep up with the increasing costs. Food, fuel, taxes it is just ridiculous. Everything goes up 20% to 35% these days……except my COLA, at least I have that; a whopping 2.5%.

 

[In God We Trust]

I have been on a fixed income for the last 20 years now and it is impossible to keep up with the increasing costs. Food, fuel, taxes it is just ridiculous. Everything goes up 20% to 35% these days……except my COLA, at least I have that; a whopping 2.5%.

It’s worse for me because im a renter. My rent has gone up 50% in the last 6 years. There is also nowhere cheaper in my area to move to, so I have to bite the bullet and deal with it. I’m paying in rent now what my mortgage was pre divorce.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It’s worse for me because im a renter. My rent has gone up 50% in the last 6 years. There is also nowhere cheaper in my area to move to, so I have to bite the bullet and deal with it. I’m paying in rent now what my mortgage was pre divorce.

Rents have gone off the charts too. I don’t know how they expect people to make ends meet anymore.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I'll say it this way. An LTC applies to a person not an address or a neighborhood. It doesn't make any difference who is living in the house. If the guy was worried about his kid being dangerous he has every reason to be armed. The same thinking applies to women who are battered by boyfriends and husbands. "suitability" is a nebulous term. I'm willing to bet that half of all cops would fail the same suitability criteria if their badges were taken away.

 

[In God We Trust]

Rents have gone off the charts too. I don’t know how they expect people to make ends meet anymore.

I suspect the rental market is mostly funded by section 8 and short term people.

He notifies us of the rent increases by sticking a letter in our door frame around the 1st. When I walk the hall, maybe 1 in 5 other apartments have A letter in the door. That means either they are under a lease or section 8 is paying.

 

[42!]

Troubled legal history - multiple court appearance for simple assault, petty juvenile crime, being accused of drug offences, records of domestic calls, affiliation or association with known gang members. These are all things that can weigh on suitability now, and set too high a burden to successfully challenge.

If that was comm2a's standard to get involved or not that would be great, but it's not. I have none of this, and yet not clean enough. If they just put exaclyt this in the law, then at least there would be something a person could fight.

It’s not hyperbolic bullshit. There are absolutely people who live in homes that are just as likely to be broken into and robbed as it is likely that this guy’s family takes an angle grinder or other destructive method to a gun lock box.

You're delusional if you you think what happens in your own home by/with your own family is the same as what some unknown criminal might do when he happens to pick you house for a criminal act. These are worlds apart when it comes to risk and accountability.