• 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.

Young v Hawaii effect on Mass?

T

Texasgrillchef

Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
210
Likes
84
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Assuming for a minute that this case makes it to SCOTUS, and that SCOTUS finds that open carry is constitutional without needing a permit, or even with a permit but good cause is unconstitutional in terms of open carry. In what ways do you think Mass would change their current permit laws? Assuming that with that ruling anyone would be able to open carry without a permit, or that mass would become shall issue in regards to open carry? Do you think that would cause them to change the laws on conceal carry as well? Or remain the same?

IMHO, since open carry is not allowed now, they would attempt to make people choose to conceal carry by making it easier to get a conceal permit. That’s my thought though.
 
As of 1998 MA is an open carry state for handguns and not rifles. The only thing preventing open carry from being a regular occurrence in MA is the issue of suitability being used to revoke a license for open carrying.

Based on MA still ignoring Heller with regard to simple possession within the home and 'safe storage' and what they did ignoring Caetano, the Commonwealth will have to be dragged to federal court or have the US Marshalls come in to get the state to acknowledge SCotUS.

MA is one of the states which refuses to acknowledge the 14th Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states and federal supremacy in general without getting a bench slap first.
 
Well, Open Carry (handguns) in Mass is not unlawful, but it's like farting in church....most people don't do it.

As for other states', or Federal law....if the Glorious Ruling Party of DPRM doesn't like it, they'll ignore/fight it with every fiber of the taxpayers' money.

Oh, and it's rifles and shotguns that are verboten from OC, unless lawfully engaged in hunting (entire threads on this)>
 
Who is going to make the state follow federal law? Especially since Baker is going to secede in Nov with all the other commie northeastern states(you too NH.)
 
Waher said:
As of 1998 MA is an open carry state for handguns and not rifles. The only thing preventing open carry from being a regular occurrence in MA is the issue of suitability being used to revoke a license for open carrying.

Based on MA still ignoring Heller with regard to simple possession within the home and 'safe storage' and what they did ignoring Caetano, the Commonwealth will have to be dragged to federal court or have the US Marshalls come in to get the state to acknowledge SCotUS.

MA is one of the states which refuses to acknowledge the 14th Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states and federal supremacy in general without getting a bench slap first.
Click to expand...
Bench slap...love it..get it...bench slap..
 
Texasgrillchef said:
Assuming for a minute that this case makes it to SCOTUS, and that SCOTUS finds that open carry is constitutional without needing a permit, or even with a permit but good cause is unconstitutional in terms of open carry. In what ways do you think Mass would change their current permit laws? Assuming that with that ruling anyone would be able to open carry without a permit, or that mass would become shall issue in regards to open carry? Do you think that would cause them to change the laws on conceal carry as well? Or remain the same?
Click to expand...

The issue most likely to make it to the Palace is magazine size limitations since there’s a direct conflict between circuits. The Young case will be heard en banc first and may come out with a more limited holding.
 
First off I stand corrected I was under the assumption that OC wasn’t legally allowed.

I a, surprised someone hasn’t forced the issue with the state on things. But it doesn’t help when the circuit court for the area up there hasn’t been favorable to ourside.
 
Texasgrillchef said:
I am surprised someone hasn’t forced the issue with the state on things. But it doesn’t help when the circuit court for the area up there hasn’t been favorable to ourside.
Click to expand...
The MA Supreme Judicial Court actually ruled carrying concealed and having your firearm exposed by the wind can't be used to yank a license because you are carrying in accordance with your license. Guess what? People, like some poor guy in Dedham, still get bagged and have to fight the same battle in court to get the precedent acknowledged because the process is used as the punishment. No one open carries outside of uniformed security or outdoor activities in the boonies because the harassment in a may issue state isn't worth the potential legal bills if some DA, judge, or Chief decides to be an a**h***.
 
Climbnsink said:
Trump. Trump is going to win. And there will be all sorts of attacks against the sovereignty of America possibly including secession of a state or collective of states.
Click to expand...

I see the possibility if either win sadly. If California secedes that will be a big win for republicans. If Texas secedes that’s a big loss for republicans. However, what few people realize is how much it will hurt the economy of both the US and of the state or state that secedes. Not really a good outcome for anyone. However, peopleof the us are now more polarized to being conservative or liberal then ever before and sadly our politicians fail to see it on both sides.

I don’t support secession of any state including my own. Even though I don’t like the politics of California, I also don’t wish to see them secede either.

What is the solution, I have no idea. Either way it’s not good. All I can say is I don’t like the Democrats. That being said doesn’t mean I like Trump. I just don’t want Democrat’s in power.
 
Waher said:
The MA Supreme Judicial Court actually ruled carrying concealed and having your firearm exposed by the wind can't be used to yank a license because you are carrying in accordance with your license. Guess what? People, like some poor guy in Dedham, still get bagged and have to fight the same battle in court to get the precedent acknowledged because the process is used as the punishment. No one open carries outside of uniformed security or outdoor activities in the boonies because the harassment in a may issue state isn't worth the potential legal bills if some DA, judge, or Chief decides to be an a**h***.
Click to expand...

That happens all over the country.

Example...

The US Army Corp of Engineers which owns and operates many recreation facilities, as well as leases land for recreational use to cities and state parks around the country has a rule that no handguns or firearms are allowed on the property.

In 2018 a person filed a lawsuit in federal court against the USACE and won, the rule was found unconstitutional. The USACE of engineers decided not to appeal, and that they would initiate a rule change. (Nesbit v USACE) As of today, the rule change hasnt officially be implemented. It is in the process of being changed but has not yet. Public comment on the rule change ended on June 2020.

Even though the rule was found to be unconstitutional, state park rangers as well as city park policemen (for those parks leases to states parks and cities) are still writing tickets to those who are carrying firearms. The cases get dismissed by those who hire good lawyers. However many just pay the $250 fine, if you hire a lawyer it costs you thousands. The LEO’s know this, and yet they still do it to harass you until which time the rule finally gets changed.

Here in Texas though, the Texas State Parks Rangers are aware that it has been found unconstitutional and have been instructed NOT to write any tickets for those state parks that are leasing USACE land.

However, on USACE land that is controlled directly by them, if you are issued a ticket, there is a law that allows you to recoup from the federal government your legal fees fighting any ticket they write for this. Sadly though that doesn’t apply to tickets written by city or state police.

Coming directly from a director of one of the areas here in Texas, the official rule change won’t go into effect until around March 1, 2021. Exactly what that new rule is, is unknown at this time.
 
Waher said:
As of 1998 MA is an open carry state for handguns and not rifles. The only thing preventing open carry from being a regular occurrence in MA is the issue of suitability being used to revoke a license for open carrying.

Based on MA still ignoring Heller with regard to simple possession within the home and 'safe storage' and what they did ignoring Caetano, the Commonwealth will have to be dragged to federal court or have the US Marshalls come in to get the state to acknowledge SCotUS.

MA is one of the states which refuses to acknowledge the 14th Amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states and federal supremacy in general without getting a bench slap first.
Click to expand...


This covered the basics, and I'll clarify one major distinction. MA has done a laser guided precision job of isolating right to possess as distinct from all other rights.

If right to open carry is elevated, it won't change MA laws, as they already have free open carry. Due to their biblical isolation covering the possession aspect, nothing burger will be had if the SC clarifies the condition.

SC would never open ended clarify.
 
fshalor said:
This covered the basics, and I'll clarify one major distinction. MA has done a laser guided precision job of isolating right to possess as distinct from all other rights.

If right to open carry is elevated, it won't change MA laws, as they already have free open carry. Due to their biblical isolation covering the possession aspect, nothing burger will be had if the SC clarifies the condition.

SC would never open ended clarify.
Click to expand...

I think the decision at hand, is really if “good cause” can be used for issuing a permit to open carry.

Hawaii hasn’t banned open carry “outright” it is allowed with a permit. The problem is, you have to have “good cause” to obtain a permit. Hawaii hasn’t isssued any permits, other then to security/body guards. During the enBanc hearing Hawaii openly admitted a constitutional right to open carry, they only defended the right to require “good cause”

So when all is said and done, the courts won’t be able to rule that open carry isn’t constitutional. The question on constitutionality is if a state can require “good cause” before issuing a permit.

A 3 judge panel ruled that requiring “good cause” was unconstitutional. That’s why Hawaii petitioned for an EnBanc. Hawaii won’t drop the issue even if the 11 judge panel find in favor of young. They will petition for a SCOTUS hearing. Who knows if SCOTUS will hear it or not. Many do think they will now withAston to be JusticeAmy Barrett sitting soon. But as we all know there are no guarantees except death and taxes.

Correct me if I am wrong. To open carry in Mass, you still have to have a permit/license. That permit/license still requires “good cause” correct? So if the SC hear it and find in Young’s favor, maybe Mass will have to remove the “good cause” reason for at least open carry permits?
 
Texasgrillchef said:
Correct me if I am wrong. To open carry in Mass, you still have to have a permit/license. That permit/license still requires “good cause” correct? So if the SC hear it and find in Young’s favor, maybe Mass will have to remove the “good cause” reason for at least open carry permits?
Click to expand...

Lol. Mere possession in MA requires a license, or at least a [shall-issue] FID card.

Carry is more complicated, but in the vast majority of MA jurisdictions, no. In those places, you get unrestricted carry just by asking for it, with no further need to substantiate it.
 
MA's response to being dragged kicking and screaming into May Issue would be to restrict carry with a rabbit warren of binding signage and sensitive areas. The state would either ban concealed or open carry or make one of them a pain in the ass to do lawfully. Holster requirements, high fees, etc. The Commonwealth is never going to abide by the Constitution. They will keep dreaming up every Jim Crow type bullshit they can. Expect broad and intentionally vague language that requires people to defend themselves in court, at their own expense, from every CoP's, DA's, and judges interpretation of the legislature's crayon scrawl.

The state refuses to even acknowledge simple possession in the home despite SCotUS stating it plainly. Do you really think they will acknowledge anything else?
 
Picton said:
Lol. Mere possession in MA requires a license, or at least a [shall-issue] FID card.

Carry is more complicated, but in the vast majority of MA jurisdictions, no. In those places, you get unrestricted carry just by asking for it, with no further need to substantiate it.
Click to expand...
May issue. FID is May Issue now.
 
Picton said:
REEEEEalllly...

Wow. I was always under the impression is was Shall Issue IOT avoid a 2A challenge. They're clearly not worried about that.
Click to expand...
They changed the law in 2014 from Shall to May Issue. The Commonwealth is taking a giant dump on Heller and laughing about it. It's why they ignored a unanimous SCotUS bench slap in Caetano.
 
Waher said:
MA's response to being dragged kicking and screaming into May Issue would be to restrict carry with a rabbit warren of binding signage and sensitive areas. The state would either ban concealed or open carry or make one of them a pain in the ass to do lawfully. Holster requirements, high fees, etc. ...
Click to expand...
  1. That would be a cunning plan to fail to meet strict scrutiny.
  2. Concealed means concealed.
 
Not to be mean or rude, but I am sure glad I don’t live in Mass. I would love to visit for historical reasons and to see the beauty of mass.

Sadly, if Idid live there, I would refuse theFID and take Mass to court, and request the feds for enforcement. If the police tried to take the guns from my house. Many would loose their lives! News would be national.Luckily for everyone I don’t live there, so it won’t happen! Lol

Its one reason why most Leo’s here in Texas are against any red flag laws! As well as most republican politicians. They know passing a red flag law would just cost a lot of lives to be lost. But this is Texas lol.

It is sad to see any state or locality totally disregard the constitution and the courts especially when the courts rule something unconstitutional. Sadly lately the courts have done nothing to enforce their findings, and no one else seems to continue to pursue.

If these suits started costing the states millions of dollars and bankrupting them, I think it would be a different story. (J

the NYC case, they could have sued for monetary damages against the city in the millions but failed to do so. SCOTUS ruled it was moot, but sent it back to lower courts for them to secure for damages. They dropped the case. Uggg.

Mass isn’t the only one that flagrantly disobeys federal laws and ruling. NY continually and still arrests people even when they follow FOPA. Why? Cause it generates revenue for the state even when they dismiss a case. Money for lawyers. Money for food and lodging for family that’s with the person arrested, money for bondsman, etc...

If we made it possible to sue the states for damages in federal court for these abuses, they might think twice. Most of the time it’s not possible without rare circumstances.
 

Similar threads

A real "hmm" on duty to retreat in a mass-shooting...
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
  • Locked
Registration on Mass. Portal
Replies
14
Views
875
M1911
M1911
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
201
milktree
milktree
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
Question on LTC's
2
Replies
37
Views
879
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom