Posted on 07/17/2022 6:20:37 AM PDT by marktwain
In Massachusetts, the Attorney General’s office has issued guidance as to how agencies in the state may comply with the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment as ruled in the NYSR&PA v. Bruen decision. From the Massachusetts AG Guidance:
The Supreme Court made clear in Bruen that States may, consistent with the Second Amendment, require licenses to carry firearms in public. Bruen, slip op. 4-6 & 6 n.2; id. (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“the Court’s decision does not prohibit States from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense”).
- It remains unlawful to carry a firearm in Massachusetts without a license. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen did not affect, but instead expressly stated that it was constitutional, for states to require a license to carry a firearm in public.
- Licensing authorities should continue to enforce the “prohibited person” and “suitability” provisions of the license-to-carry statute. These aspects of the statute are unaffected by Bruen.
- Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the “good reason” provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen. Authorities should no longer deny, or impose restrictions on, a license to carry because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm. An applicant who is neither a “prohibited person” or “unsuitable” must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.
- Licensing authorities may continue to inquire about the reasons why the applicant wants a license, but may only use that information to assess the prohibited person and suitability requirements of the statute. They may not use that information to deny or restrict a license for lack of a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm.
Whether the above requirements, without the “good reason” provision, will meet the standards in Bruen, remain to be seen.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Massghanistan Attorneys General for years have been left-wing loons who gave the country buggery and strap-on tool “marriage”. Two hundred and twenty-five years ago the people of Massachusetts would have tarred and feathered those people and run them out of the state on a rail.
“..Two hundred and twenty-five years ago the people of Massachusetts would have tarred and feathered those people and run them out of the state on a rail....”
Without a doubt. It would be comical if it weren’t so serious.
It’s like CT being the Constitution State. The hypocrisy has no bounds.
“...States may, consistent with the Second Amendment, require licenses to carry firearms in public...” Oh, yeah, the permit/license requirement part of the 3rd paragraph of the 2nd amendment. 😵💫🤡💩🤬
Pro is the opposite of con. Connecticut is really the Prostitution State today.
So criminals are looking for greener pastures now?
The claim of “Constitution State” in Connecticut goes back to the Fundamental Orders of 1639 (I think) long before any version of our constitution included a Bill of Rights.
So the leftist loons in political authority continue to bastardize the Constitution in order to suit their agenda of control. They are the enemies of a free US!
Big change in that even an anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment state like Mass. is forced to become a ‘shall issue’ state. The lib states will try to restrict the right to carry where they think they can, but even the leftie AG in Mass. is forced to change the guidelines to say the ‘good cause’ requirements for a carry license are no longer in force.
Train, Protect yourself, and shut up!
This is actually a HUGH positive change.
Well, as long as the Licensing officers follow what is written here and not “read between the lines”.
There are MANY towns and most cities that have allowed a license to buy or own a gun. But refused any aspect of actually carrying a firearm.
Unfortunately, as long as “suitability” allows Cleo’s discretion they will have quite a bit of wiggle room to deny people.
It’s going to need a few denials and escalated law suits to codify Mass as a true Shall issue state.
Massachusetts may be the least restrictive of the 6 "may issue" states.
‘good cause’ requirements
Good cause is simply because it aligns with the US Bill of Rights. That it takes a once every decade case to reinforce that idea at the SCOTUS is telling, states reps have no education when writing state laws, and State AGs are political sock puppets. Lawyers and Judges are so dense it took 50+ years to figure this out. A nine year old can figure out constitutional carry is the right, and a few states finally admit to themselves that is the standard. We are not the rest of the world, we haul the rest of the world out of darkness with regularity.
Currently, about 10% of the adults in Massachusetts have a carry permit.
Massachusetts may be the least restrictive of the 6 “may issue” states.
= = =
Isn’t a permit required to even own a gun in Mass?
Last I tried to figure it out, there were 3 or 4 levels of permit. From going to a range, to hunting, to concealed carry. Seems that they all are ‘carry’ permits.
Correct me as needed.
My understanding is the changes made it about as difficult to obtain a carry permit as to obtain a permit simply to own a firearm.
So, most people applied for a carry permit, and most permits in Massachusetts are carry permits.
The number of carry permits in Massachusetts are from the Crime Prevention Research study of carry permits in the United States.
Yep, “suitability” is the weasel word. Whole lotta flex available for interpretation.
A poll tax and reading test were decided as unconstitutional infringements on the first amendment, way-back-when.
So what’s different about ‘allowing’ state licensing for the second?
This is just word salad to ignore Bruen without expressly saying it. How is a “suitability” standard any different than “good reason”? This is just an attempt to gum up the works and continue business as usual until they can get the court packed.
And what constitutes “suitability” exactly?
We do not know yet.
I expect court cases shortly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.