SCOTUS vacates Massachusetts gun law

[stansdds]

In a 6-3 decision, the SCOTUS vacated Massachusetts laws requiring a license to purchase or possess a handgun and the lifetime ban on purchasing a handgun after conviction for a non-violent misdemeanor involving the use of a firearm. I hope I am not violating the terms of this forum, but I felt this was such good news for the 2A and gun owners in Massachusetts. This could easily spill over to other states with similar laws.



Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law | Fox News

 

[Rich Richardson]

What would constitute a non violent misdemeanor involving the use of a firearm? Would you have an example? Thanks.

 

[murphydog]

Consult your friendly MA lawyer for an exact answer, but I would guess things along the lines of having an inaccessible gun in a car, or perhaps brandishing without pointing it or threatening anyone with it.

 

[Breadman1]

Maybe exposing the gun in public when it's supposed to be concealed?

 

[Buford57]

Rich

It's been a long time, but when I was working in MA, leaving an unattended firearm in a vehicle was a misdemeanor. Add in the game law violations (uncased in vehicle, lead shot in waterfowl zone, firing within restricted area, loaded after hunting hours) and the list goes on. Possession of ammunition without a permission slip (snark!). An easy way to "prevent" crime by using a trivial offense to permanently deprive an otherwise law abiding citizen of their constitutional rights. It was supposed to put the mafia out of business.

 

[JJEH]

What would constitute a non violent misdemeanor involving the use of a firearm? Would you have an example? Thanks.

Unlawful carry of a firearm, allowing minors to possess, discharging in public place, just to name a few. This is OK state statue.

 

[Marshal Tom]

I am so darn glad I left that stupid state! I was a police officer there all thru the 70's on Marthas Vineyard where many of my family still are living. Interestingly they are all screaming libs. I had a CCW there for many years after moving to Colorado in 1980 but then I just did my HR 218 when I retired and didn't pursue renewing it.

 

[ladder13]

Maybe they can slap NY too.

 

[GaryS]

I forget the details of the case, but one of the issues was that the attorney for the state posited that MA offered a "Permit to Purchase" that would allow the plaintiff to buy a gun to keep in his house. That was clearly not true, but the district court judge swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.

I don't know if this remand will prompt the judge to declare the MA License To Carry requirement unconstitutional.

It will at the least open the door for a lot of people to apply for a permit who were barred in the past.

 

[HeyJoe]

Maybe they can slap NY too.

someone should challenge the NY law needing a license to possess and purchase pronto.

The current challenges to the new gun law do not challenge needing a permit just to posses or purchase

 

[BB57]

What would constitute a non violent misdemeanor involving the use of a firearm? Would you have an example? Thanks.

In this case it was a man from MA with an MA concealed carry permit visiting DC while carrying concealed. He saw a sign at the entrance of the holocaust museum saying "no guns" and asked them where he could check his handgun.

<Take all the time you need to absorb that.>

To be fair:

- since DC was at the time a city that did not allow guns in public let along handguns and let alone concealed handguns the "no guns" sign was redundant; and

- I can almost see why the guy may have thought concealed carry was otherwise legal in DC; provided

- he'd been living under a rock for the previous 40 years.

In any case the security guard called the police and he was arrested. He got off really easy with just a non violent misdemeanor conviction.

Then he contested his inability to purchase a handgun all the way to the Supreme Court.

——

The critical issue here is that the 11th circuit had ruled that being ineligible for a purchase permit for a handgun did not restrict his 2A rights since he might still be able to inherit a handgun.

The SCOTUS ruling essentially says the 11th circuit used an overly narrow read of the issues involved and to go back and get it right this time.

 

[GaryS]

This forum and other guns forums are inhabited by "gun people." Most gun owners aren't gun people, they are just people who own guns.

I have no doubt that like me, if you travel to another state you check the laws before you go to make sure you aren't violating the law. For example when I got to visit my son in SC, I know that I can't concealed carry there, although if I head over the line to NC I can.

Which doesn't mean he didn't break a law, it just means that he should have been more careful. It also doesn't mean that he should be prohibited from ever owning a gun in MA again.

Note that this was a 1st Circuit case, not an 11th.

In this case it was a man from MA with an MA concealed carry permit visiting DC while carrying concealed. He saw a sign at the entrance of the holocaust museum saying "no guns" and asked them where he could check his handgun.

<Take all the time you need to absorb that.>

To be fair:

- since DC was at the time a city that did not allow guns in public let along handguns and let alone concealed handguns the "no guns" sign was redundant; and

- I can almost see why the guy may have thought concealed carry was otherwise legal in DC; provided

- he'd been living under a rock for the previous 40 years.

In any case the security guard called the police and he was arrested. He got off really easy with just a non violent misdemeanor conviction.

Then he contested his inability to purchase a handgun all the way to the Supreme Court.

——

The critical issue here is that the 11th circuit had ruled that being ineligible for a purchase permit for a handgun did not restrict his 2A rights since he might still be able to inherit a handgun.

The SCOTUS ruling essentially says the 11th circuit used an overly narrow read of the issues involved and to go back and get it right this time.

 

[BSA1]

6 -3 vote should send a powerful message to the lower courts. Judges usually do not like having their decisions overturned on appeal.

 

[steelslaver]

I fondly remember being about 23 years old and working on a drilling rig in ND about 1974. I had rented an apartment in down town Williston and as it was another guys turn to drive., I went down and stood on the street about 3pm with a Ruger Blackhawk 357 holstered on my hip. Imagine my surprise when the excited, but nice, police officer came along and started asking me questions. Where you going with that gun? Out to a drilling rig. Got a permit? Permit? What do I need a permit for? Where are you from. Montana. Uh huh, while over here in the civilized world you need a permit to pack that around, go put it away until you get one. OK. N Dakota wasn't always as gun friendly as it is now. LOL

 

[johngalt]

It would be nice it it puts an end to the FOID in Illinois

 

[scooter123]

What would constitute a non violent misdemeanor involving the use of a firearm? Would you have an example? Thanks.

That would be Brandishing. See the police can point handguns at you without any fear of being charged with Brandishing but if you walk out to your car with a gun in your hand because you saw someone break into it you can get a trip to the county lockup for Brandishing.

 

[cmj8591]

That would be Brandishing. See the police can point handguns at you without any fear of being charged with Brandishing but if you walk out to your car with a gun in your hand because you saw someone break into it you can get a trip to the county lockup for Brandishing.

Brandishing is not a crime in Mass. unless someone is actually put in fear, in which case it becomes assault with a dangerous weapon.

 

[smoothshooter]

6 -3 vote should send a powerful message to the lower courts. Judges usually do not like having their decisions overturned on appeal.

I would be quite surprised if this ruling makes any real difference in MA gun policies.
They will do what they want to as before.

 

[GaryS]

The bar for "putting in fear" is incredibly low in MA.

There is an older case, maybe 20 years, where an attorney was leaving a court building and his jacket blew open in the wind exposing his weapon.

He was charged with ADW, was acquitted, and the town still revoked his LTC. I think it took about 10 years to get it restored.

Of course, he was an attorney who was a PITA to the police chief in his town, but surely that had NOTHING to do with the issue.

Statutorily, there is no law against open carry, but chiefs were known to use it as evidence of unsuitability.

Whether that will change post Bruen is an open question.

Note that I have no interest in being the test case.

Brandishing is not a crime in Mass. unless someone is actually put in fear, in which case it becomes assault with a dangerous weapon.

 

[cmj8591]

The bar for "putting in fear" is incredibly low in MA.

It's a "reasonableness" standard. In other words, would a "reasonable" person in the same circumstances feel in fear of their life.

The licensing system in Mass. was in a bit of flux even before the Bruen case. I think what is happening now is the PD's are sitting back waiting to see how things shake out at the state level. There's a lot of things in play right now and it takes time for them to work their way through the system. I would say that the licensing system is going away but I think it brings in too much money and no one wants to give it up. That will certainly be a big factor in how they respond. We will see.