- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Likes
- 3,524
This is why it's called "The Swamp"
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
You’re being passive-aggressive.
Do you not realize that Bruen made Massachusetts change its policies about license restrictions? Or that red towns are now green because of Bruen? Or that MA has not tried anything as stupid as deliberately passing an even more restrictive set of statutes as a direct challenge to SCOTUS?
If MA was anywhere near as bad as NYS, we’d be talking more about MA here. But MA chose not to lose its mind after Bruen; instead, it made changes to avoid notice by SCOTUS.
BigGreen2000
NES Member
Mass should also be removing “suitability,” as it directly contradicts Bruen
They did. De facto. If it ever needs to get challenged in court, it’ll probably go even further away.
Honestly, the only objectionable parts of the LTC process left are the training and fee requirements. SCOTUS explicitly said that licenses are bueno, so the fees are unlikely to go away. Maybe the training will, maybe not.
compared to when I got my first LTC in a red town, the post-Bruen climate for LTCs is night and day.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,397
- Likes
- 3,799
Massachusetts should also start to allow gun stores to open in commercial zones. City selectman (Newton) can't whine about "public safety" anymore.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2019
- Messages
- 417
- Likes
- 781
Suitability is still being used in Mass;
it is currently being used by police departments to deny LTC............
Such as?
And if it is, it can now be taken to court with a better level of scrutiny. Meaning, it’ll go away.
Except for reference letters, turtling, and general obstructionism. That stuff is liable to be around until it can get picked off somehow.....
Ah.
Well, it does take someone with enough time and energy to take it to court. And they’d also have to show harm. As long as those letters and obstruction aren’t used for actual denial, that’s going to be difficult.
That's the thing the legally after a point a right delayed is a right denied like if issuing authority has been turtling on somebody's appointment or application for 100 days at which point does it actually become an infringement? Actually a big Improvement would be a court case that actually just forced the issuing authorities to obey the existing Massachusetts law that would probably be a good start. No trickeration or b*******, and the timer starts when the person actually drops off their application at the PD...
Editor
NES Member
That is not about Massachusetts allowing or disallowing; it’s about local zoning, not a Commonwealth matter.
BS, there has been no change in the law since 2015 and even after that judges still cited "broad discretion", in direct contradiction of the law. And they still maintain that suitability isn't arbitrary and thus not in contradiction to Bruen.
I'd say the existence of/need for an LTC is the most objectionable part.
I wrote my buddy a reference letter for his first LTC in Woburn a few weeks ago, so unfortunately Woburn is at least 1 town still requiring them.
While I agree, you have to read the next sentence: SCOTUS upheld it. So, in the real world, it's not going away. That was the context of that sentence.
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,397
- Likes
- 3,799
If my memory serves me correctly, Newton changed the zoning rules AFTER they learned a gun store was about to open at a location in Newton.
And they still stopped the shop from opening.
No, they did not. They moved from "discretion" to "suitability".
Yup.
Read this:
Definition of “de facto”
In practice, municipalities are not denying people for discretion or suitability.
Dadstoys
NES Member
It certainly does effect Ma.
"May" to "Shall" issue .
It may take a while to whip some of the D-bag towns into line , but we'll get there.
Dadstoys
NES Member
"Useful Idiots"
Yes, I knew it did this initially. I was more talking about more recent updates in this thread. They are almost entirely New York based.
So you've done the public info request for all the municipalities in MA? Or is it just that your one municipality hasn't, as far as you know.
About 8 years ago I did an info request of the 9 metro-west towns for this specific info for the past 5 years. More than 1/2 tried to weasel out of providing it. Based on that admittedly small and old sample there would be 100s of suitability denials every year across the state. I highly doubt that dropped to zero overnight especially considering that the AG said it was still OK to deny on suitability and there is zero repercussions to the LO for doing it.
But if you've got the data, I'm willing to look, and be wrong.
1. I know what "de facto" means.
2. I believe you are wrong about "suitabliity".
Any research done before Bruen hit is basically meaningless, other than as a guide as to which towns are more likely to try to push the edges.
There really hasn't been enough time for any useful data since Bruen.
So, no, I haven't done any public info requests.
My understanding (from, you know, "crap on The Internet") is that the CLEO cannot anymore deny anyone because they don't like your reasons or your haircut or because "we don't give out licences to anyone but cops and lawyers". They now have to come up with real, articulatable reasons for denying, reasons that will stand up in court when challenged. Not just "I got a hunch", or "too many speeding tickets".
So, yea, there will be some people who might still get caught by suitability, but the reasons have to be way, way better than before. That means, for most people, it doesn't really matter anymore.
Hense, "de facto"
I disagree, kind of. I agree with pretty much everything here, except the "de facto", because they will always be on the lookout for a suitability denial to replace the discretionary denial. This just means they need, as you say, "articulatable" reasons.
And if it ever happens, you'll hear it here first. I have no doubt.
But then? There will be a federal civil rights case. And that would not have been possible pre-Bruen.
Garys
NES Member
SAF, FPC File a Lawsuit Challenging New York's 'Assault Weapons' Ban - The Truth About Guns
From the Second Amendment Foundation . . . A federal lawsuit supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition has been filed in New York, challenging that state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Plaintiffs are represented by SAF and FPC attorneys. The case is known...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
So much for Bruen being only about concealed carry.
SFC13557
NES Member
YAAA!SAF, FPC File a Lawsuit Challenging New York's 'Assault Weapons' Ban - The Truth About Guns
From the Second Amendment Foundation . . . A federal lawsuit supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition has been filed in New York, challenging that state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Plaintiffs are represented by SAF and FPC attorneys. The case is known...
So much for Bruen being only about concealed carry.
Should be interesting.
I guess I need to send each a Christmas Present.
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
SAF, FPC File a Lawsuit Challenging New York's 'Assault Weapons' Ban - The Truth About Guns
From the Second Amendment Foundation . . . A federal lawsuit supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition has been filed in New York, challenging that state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Plaintiffs are represented by SAF and FPC attorneys. The case is known...
So much for Bruen being only about concealed carry.
Always a bridesmaid and never a bride...
