This Is The Toughest Gun Law In America

[Metal god]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/this-is-the-toughest-gun-law-in-america/ar-AAwPfaZ?ocid=spartandhp

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.
But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.
If the police come to believe an applicant is a possible threat to public safety, they can refuse to grant the permit. And that is what happened in the case of this man from Newton.
Police records showed eight visits to his home from 2008 to 2012, each time in response to calls from family members concerned about his behavior. On one occasion, according to the police account, the man had punched a picture frame and lacerated his hand; another time, he had been wielding a knife and threatening to commit suicide. Officers took the man into protective custody after three of the visits, the reports said, and at nearly all of them he was intoxicated.
This December, following a procedure that Massachusetts law lays out, Newton’s chief filed a five-page memo with a state district court. It summarized the incident reports, one by one, and concluded that the man “had exhibited or engaged in behavior that could potentially create a risk to public safety.”
The man, who declined to comment for this article and whose name HuffPost is not publishing, challenged the police decision in court, as the law allows applicants to do. A written filing stated that he has completed treatment for alcohol addiction, as a physician independently confirmed. It also said that he has a steady job and noted that there have been no incidents since 2012.

Is there any way this law can be constitutional to a reasonable person and or judge ?

Lets start with the first two bold sections . Now I'd have to read the law but what constitutes a character references and what's there liability

? I'd first think how can a constitutional right be predicated on two other peoples opinion of you ?

Second , the first thing I'd do is put out an add in the paper offering my services as a character reference to anyone who wants it and see how that fly's . Either anyone can give you a character reference or they have even more restrictions to that part of the law .

Next is sitting down with a government official asking for permission to own a firearm . That sure sounds like a "MAY" or "GOOD CAUSE" issue law to me and leaving the decision up to one person . How clear are the reasons to refuse the purchase ? Here in CA there are no clear reasons set out in the law for concealed carry and it's left up to one person in each county ( the sheriff ) to determine what good cause means , as the Peruta case showed here . In San Diego county I can't carry concealed based on our good cause law because I don't meet the "good cause" requirements based on the San Diego Sheriff's opinion . How ever if I lived in Riverside county just 1-1/2 hours away in the same state I would easily get a carry permit using the exact same reasoning I used when filing for the permit in San Diego . Oh AND I'd be able to carry in San Diego because the CC permit is state wide .

Leaving the RKBA up to one or just a few people sure seems like pushing it pretty fare . Remember this is not to carry a gun in the streets like I was asking here in CA this is to own a firearm for any reason .

This brings us to the third bold section that seems to indicate that the person in question was not mentally unstable but rather drunk on each of those calls of police to his home . Now that's a whole other argument then someone that is mentally unfit to posses firearm . That sure sounds like a slippery slope if that is allowed to be considered . ( with out getting to deep into it ) I completely understand what addiction is and what it can do to a person short and long term . I also am not completely against them looking into your history of addiction to legal or illegal drugs .

My concern is writing the interview into the law . This brings up the idea of the state doing more then is needed to solve the problem as far as infringing on a right . Why can't the state have there own background check not to unlike CA where all those calls to the police are documented . This would result in a hold on the release of the firearm until the matter was resolved . Allowing the purchaser to challenge in court and show they are no longer dependent on drugs .

Having to sit down for an interview seems way to much to ask . First I have to ask how many firearms are purchased in that or any town of the state each day ? There could be hundreds of interviews needed every day depending on the size of the town . Next would be how many full time employees "qualified" to interview each applicant will there be ? This sure sounds like a "make an appointment and we'll get to you in the order in which you were received . Not only are you at the whim of a very small group of people to exercise your RKBA but it could take days , weeks or heck even months to do so based on when you get the interview and when they release there opinion .

What if you have a safe full of firearms already . If you already have all the guns you need to do any harm one could think of . Why would you need to sit down with someone to take possession of another ?

I'll leave it there for now . I'm no lawyer , but I see many problems with this law .

 

[DaleA]

I read the story in the Huffington Post which allows readers to comment on the story. The stupidity and the irrationality of the comments by the anti-gun crowd are disheartening.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/toughest-gun-law-america_us_5aeb27a9e4b041fd2d23d3f7

Here's a couple:

Anyone who wants to buy a gun, should be automatically enrolled in the military. If they make it thru basic, and serve their time, then they can be evaluated to see if they can own a weapon. If they flunk out of basic, they get a refund, and never get to own a gun.

I want to see guns owners accept full responsibility for any crime that their gun is involved in... whether or not the owner actually committed the crime... even if their gun is stolen from them.

 

[44 AMP]

OK, I'm going to tackle your questions, as best I can. This is not a criticism, its intended to give you a response, and some information, and possibly an explanation of their different viewpoints.

Is there any way this law can be constitutional to a reasonable person and or judge ?

Sure, absolutely. Especially if they are in MA and grew up there. Always remember that while we may think they are wrong, they think they are right, and the system you grow up in is considered what is right, and proper, nearly always...

? I'd first think how can a constitutional right be predicated on two other peoples opinion of you ?

It's not. It's only ONE person's opinion that matters, that of the issuing authority.

The information from "two character references" is not the deciding factor, it is PART of the information used to generate the decision.

I grew up in NY state, and in the 70s the requirement for a pistol permit was 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, 3 character references, and investigation by various state agencies. And then AFTER all that, the decision was entirely at the whim of the county judge who issued the permit.

And this was a permit to own, and open carry (such as while hunting) not a concealed carry permit.

This was the existing system, and entirely "constitutional" according to the State of New York.

Second , the first thing I'd do is put out an add in the paper offering my services as a character reference to anyone who wants it and see how that fly's

Won't fly, won't even crawl. Sure, you can DO it, but your opinion won't carry any weight with the authorities. The entire point of requiring character references is to find someone who knows the applicant, and can give a valid opinion of his character. This is a heavily "time weighted" assessment.

The neighbor who has known you since you were 6, knows about your general behavior, whether or not, or how often you got in trouble, and how serious it was, over many years, is usually considered a valid source of information.

If you advertise to be someone's character reference, how's that interview going to go?

"Mr. X has applied for a gun permit. He has listed you as a reference. How long have you known Mr. X?"

"Since he answered my ad..."
Buzzer sound....

Next is sitting down with a government official asking for permission to own a firearm . That sure sounds like a "MAY" or "GOOD CAUSE" issue law to me and leaving the decision up to one person .

Oh, it is. And that's what the law not only provides for, but requires, in those areas. Some years back, MA instituted a requirement for a FOID card.
Firearm Owner ID card. Every firearm owner in the state was required to get one, and have it on them with the gun. Several other states have similar laws as well. I've heard some places include BB guns under the FOID law. (and please, anyone out there who lives in one of those places, correct me if I'm wrong about the laws)

MAY issue is a long standing authority with many government processes, and fully accepted by a large percentage of the voting public. It's a trust matter. MAY ISSUE laws trust the judgement of the elected or appointed authority to rule justly in all cases.

Wise, and noble, to be sure. Trouble is, some people think others abuse that authority. And, sometimes, they do, but not until a court rules that they have. And that doesn't always happen...

Going back to the 70s NY system (where I have personal experience) issuance of a pistol permit was dependent on a judge. And, each judge had their own opinion about different things. If you were qualified in all other aspects, it might come down to the stated purpose for applying.

A Judge in Saratoga County would only approve permits where the reason stated was for "hunting and sporting purposes". If the application listed "self defense" or "personal protection" he would not sign it.

A Judge in Albany County would only approve permits that listed "self defense" or "personal protection" on them, and would deny all others.

SO, you kind of had to tailor your stated reason to what the judge wanted to see. Is this a good thing? I don't think so, but it was the law, and the majority of the people living there were ok enough with it that it stayed the law (and I think, still is)

Like your CA example, once one county (judge in NY, Sheriff in CA?) issued the permit it was valid state wide (NY exception, no state permit is valid in New York CITY).

This brings us to the third bold section that seems to indicate that the person in question was not mentally unstable but rather drunk on each of those calls of police to his home .

Ok, here's the thing, what is being looked at here is patterns of behavior. Not so much the individual incidents, which don't rise to the level of violating the law, but the frequency of incidents. Heard of one guy denied a permit, due to a long string of speeding and parking tickets. Judge's reasoning was, habitual scofflaw on small things likely to behave the same way with bigger things (such as the safe and responsible ownership of a pistol).

Can't say the Judge was wrong in that case. Nor can I say he was right, only that he had the legal authority, and responsibility to make the decision.

Past patterns of behavior, particularly when there are police reports documenting things is a big deal today, since the Parkland shooting. And that "epic failure" being hammered in the press today makes even somewhat tolerant judges inclined to "err on the side of caution".

Having to sit down for an interview seems way to much to ask .

Personally, I agree. This seems like a new wrinkle in the MA law (but again, not being a resident, I don't know for sure). The question of how much resources are applied, and how long it takes is immaterial to the people who wrote the law, and since the law was passed, you get what you get. The only thing that can change that is effective political change within the state.

Not only are you at the whim of a very small group of people to exercise your RKBA but it could take days , weeks or heck even months to do so based on when you get the interview and when they release there opinion .

Yes, that is the law in those places. Has been for generations, a century or more in some locations. Until, unless you can get the people who live there (and vote) to pressure the elected rulers to change the law, that's the way it works. And, note that this idea goes beyond just getting approval from the powers that be to exercise your right to have a gun, it also has been applied to your right to KEEP that gun. Got an expiration date on your permit??

Is there required "safety" training? Does it have to be renewed?? Ever??
There are places that do that. I don't recall how it turned out, but some years ago there was a flap about a state that required a certain safety course to renew a pistol license. The state had, through an ever increasing list of requirements, reduced the number of people "certified" to give the training down to 3. For the whole state...(or so the story went)
People were, legally, denied permit renewals because they didn't get the required training. I know it went to court, and I heard a few govt officials got punished. And the law was amended, somehow or other...but I don't know exactly how it got settled. MY point here is that people get rights denied due to the "unintended" consequences of what may seem on the surface to be a good idea.

What if you have a safe full of firearms already . If you already have all the guns you need to do any harm one could think of . Why would you need to sit down with someone to take possession of another ?

This is a good point, and also a point I make about why the HECK do I need to pass a background check each and EVERY time I buy a gun when I have several already???

The stated reason for the background check is to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them....for those of us who ALREADY legally have them, its nothing more than unwanted burden, and a chance for the system to make an error and deny you something when you are in no way at fault.

A sit down interview with an LEO (or whomever,) can only show that you were, or weren't a raving lunatic ON THE DAY OF THE INTERVIEW.

And, allow the personal judgement of the person conducting the interview to have an effect on the decision....simply put, there are people who, if they find the way you present yourself personally distasteful, they will find a "valid" reason to deny your application...

people are like that. They shouldn't be, but some are...

I did read the linked article, and it does contain this (well hidden in the middle of a paragraph about studies "showing decrease in gun deaths due to strict laws"..

Pretty much any legitimate study is going to rely on assumptions that will be open to valid criticism; separating out cause and effect can be virtually impossible.

of course, then they go one to say how studies are "our best means to....."
implying that we should accept them at face value.

I find this to be a small kernel of truth, mentioned briefly, once, then ignored for convenience...

Hope this doesn't sound like a rant, not my intention, just trying to give you a point of view from someone who grew up in the precursor system to what they have in NY, MA, NJ and some other places today.

Place(s) I LEFT, permanently.

Places like NY and MA, and it seems CA, and others never give up. I jumped through all the required hoops and got a NY pistol permit in 75. I moved out of NY in 79. In 2002 NY sent me a letter telling me,
A) That since I was no longer a NY resident my permit was no longer valid.
B) They wanted my permit BACK!! (wallet sized Non-laminated piece of paper from 27 years earlier!! )
and
C) they wanted to know where the pistols listed on my permit were!!

NY required the pistols to be listed on the permit itself, by make, caliber, barrel length confused and serial number)

(the back story to this is that due to a traffic accident my family learned that if something had happened to Dad and no one else in the household had a permit listing his pistols, the guns would have to be surrendered to the state. Local Sheriff would keep them, if a permit was applied for, until it was issued or denied. State Police would keep them 90 days, then destroy them. So, Mom applied and got her permit, as did my brother and I, when we came of age.)

So, the guns NY was asking about where my dad's guns in 1975, and I hadn't seen them or even knew if he had them for decades...

If you are in their system, they never forget...I fully expect another letter in 20 years, asking for the same things....again

They are sooo good at what they do...

am done for now, hope this helps shed some light on where these people come from..

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Massachusetts is, at best, a may issue state. It's ironic that Massachusetts, the putative seat of the American Revolution and the minutemen, has a state constitution that does NOT make the RKBA an individual right. Yes, you read that correctly -- in Massachusetts, the RKBA exists only for the defense of the state.

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

You might find this interesting: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

It's a summary of the RKBA as it appears (or doesn't appear) in each state's constitution, with a comment following each entry as to whether or not that state allows its citizens to bear arms for self defense. You know how some folks around here (like me) often comment that we can't forget that the United States is made up of fifty individual states? Here's a good example of what that means. We absolutely cannot generalize, and apply what we think we know of the law in our own home states and act as if that applies to the other forty-nine states. They are all different -- right down to their constitutions.

 

[RC20]

It does make for some good discussion points.

What I do see is a sort of false flag in this that many agree that certain people should not own guns (or their behavior would require a removal of the guns) but when it comes to enforcing that then its against it.

Don't get me wrong, I see repeatedly that a person has drunk driving conviction, has a wreck, if luck no one injured or killed, often enough some injured and all too often also killed.

In short, failure to take steps to ensure the alcoholic does not ever get behind the wheel makes the catching them in the first place a joke.

I hope to travel in an area of the country in a few years that does not allow me reciprocity because my state does not have their minimum requirements. I will be in areas that a side arm is a good idea.

I don't find them honourous and consider them a reasonable minimum. I will comply with that state or states laws.

I do wonder what the mechanism if any to keep guns out of the hands of those who would not qualify? Removal there of and penalties for violations.

While I do question two witnesses as an aspect, if that is MA law then I would abide by it, I might question its applicability (or relevance).

But in the end if someone is found regularly drunk, should they be allowed firearms? That is often one of the trigger aspects of a shooting.

While not data based, I would guess 30% of those I see in my state involved alcohol and or drugs.

If people are going to say yes, there are categories of people who should not own or have their guns removed and then push comes to shove its fought tooth and naill not by the person involved but the gun community (NRA) , then its just lip service.

 

[CUBAN REDNECK]

Massachusetts Refugee

I bailed on Massachusetts 25 years ago and for good reason. Arbitrary and capricious decision making by the "authorities" is no way to live in America. I applied for a concealed carry permit which was DENIED in front of me by the PD, $120 down the toilet. When I protested that this was unfair and that the PD had not done a background check, I was threatened with arrest. I said goodbye and never looked back.

 

[LogicMan]

I bailed on Massachusetts 25 years ago and for good reason. Arbitrary and capricious decision making by the "authorities" is no way to live in America. I applied for a concealed carry permit which was DENIED in front of me by the PD, $120 down the toilet. When I protested that this was unfair and that the PD had not done a background check, I was threatened with arrest. I said goodbye and never looked back.

How could they threaten you with arrest for complaining?

 

[Metal god]

Thanks 44 lots of good talking points there . . I know all to well that states make there own laws , remember I'm in CA . As to AR's , Bullet buttons etc . You are correct , in fact CA has an assault weapons ban in effect and all semi automatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine and one other evil feature ( pistol grip , flash hider , forend grip , collapsible stock and or bullet button can no longer be sold , manufactured or what ever the heck else they don't want here . Also as of 6-30-2018 all of the above type mentioned firearms you currently own must be registered as assault weapons to include photos and you can't just register a stripped lower or a complete lower . It must be a fully completed rifle . That sucks for those who have many stripped lowers but don't have the cash to do a complete build by July 1st .

Back to my original point . I was not questioning the states right to pass what ever laws they want . It was directly to the constitutionality of said law . State laws get struck down all the time because they are unconstitutional . This law just seemed ripe for the SCOTUS pickings . I understand they have not been taking many RKBA cases as of late but dang this one sure seems like a good one for them to take up .

Lets put it another way , who here would say that's a reasonable law to pass nationally ? That's my point and maybe it's wrong but if a constitutional restriction should never be considered nationally . Should it really be considered at the state level ? If it's not best for the whole of the country why should it be good for some but not the rest ? Can you say North & South , IMHO when you're talking constitutional rights the right should encompass the whole of the country and not be subject to individual states whims . I believe on the whole that's true and in practice EXCEPT when it come to the RKBA . I don't know about you guys but that should really change . Either they're all equally important or they're just a few suggestions !

 

[riffraff]

I'll let a lawyer comment on legal debate but I grew up close enough to the border I could probably see over the NH/MA border in the wintertime and today I'm still < 10 miles from it..

Many other crazy things go on in MA - if you think the state laws are bad, Boston also has it's own set of more strict provisions with gun ownership; MA is one of those states where towns can makeup their own gun laws too.

One thing I always bring up because I've seen people get hit by it, and it's ridiculous, is over time they've made a long list of petty crimes that basically never result in jail time 2.5 year misdemeanors. They are very soft on crime except for intentionally sticking people with what equates to a federal felony for minor misjudgements. They have done away with expungement such to assure things are permanent too. It's all part of their scheme to limit gun ownership.

There was even an article I read once where a judge in MA determined they can use dismissed cases, or those with not guilty verdicts, against someone applying for firearms permits - ie no admission of guilt, not proven in a court of law, but guilty enough for them to deny you the right to bear arms in their kangaroo court.

 

[44 AMP]

This law just seemed ripe for the SCOTUS pickings . I understand they have not been taking many RKBA cases as of late but dang this one sure seems like a good one for them to take up

.

Except for the downside that if the SCOTUS doesn't rule the way we think it should, or just as bad, doesn't specifically rule on certain points, we could wind up with a "constitutionally approved" MA type law for the entire nation.

We are in our current status concerning state gun laws, in part because of what the Supreme Court did not directly rule on, and the assumption by certain factions, in and out of government, that absent a specific prohibition by the SCOTUS, any and everything they do is legal and proper.

SCOTUS rules on very narrow points of law, and speaks in the language of the courts, which is not the same as our common daily speech. The Court is not under any requirement to correct any or all mis-interpretations of their rulings, until a case involving one is brought before them, AND they agree to rule on it.

 

[doofus47]

I like to use the simple analogy game of replacing "firearm" with "letter to the editor."
If it sounds really un-American to force a citizen to sit down with his/her local LEO to make sure he or she is "State Approved!" to send in a letter to the editor, then it should sound equally offensive the the average citizen when the "f(irearm)" word is used.
But it's not.
And I think I use the simple analogy game b/c I'm just simple-minded. It makes me happy like marshmallows...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, being as that’s the toughest gun law in America, I bet the antis will be satisfied and leave MA gun owners alone and not seek further gun controls.

 

[44 AMP]

Don't happen to have a bridge for sale, do you??

 

[SSA]

According to this article,

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/guns/mass-chiefs-approve-most-gun-permits/

ONLY A TINY fraction of Massachusetts residents who apply for firearms licenses or identification cards are turned down, suggesting the state’s reputation for restricting gun use may be overstated.

Just 1.8 percent of those who applied for Firearms Identification Cards (FID) and licenses to carry concealed weapons between 2010 and 2015 were rejected, according to state data.

 

[riffraff]

According to this article,

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/guns/mass-chiefs-approve-most-gun-permits/

Better actually read the whole article. There are couple things in there that make the stat questionable or meaningless.

#1 they say the majority of denied licenses may never get recorded in a manner where they'd show up in that statistic - that is not very hard to believe

#2 comments indicate that the police chiefs also have the ability to restrict the uses of the permit, ie "target" - someone is going as far as to say in Boston basically only friends-of-somebody get real permits

So I don't know but sounds like that statistic alone is very slanted - it might be 1.8% actually submit appeals.

 

[SSA]

Yes, I read the article, and I quoted the first two sentences. I linked the article so that anyone interested could also read it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

SSA, you have to take license denials with a grain of salt. In D.C. and NYC, most of the denials are “unofficial” in the sense that they make it as burdensome as possible to complete the application so that they don’t have to report a denial - people just quit before they can complete the application.

 

[SSA]

Another article that I read, after this case caught my attention, gave the number of concealed pistol licenses in Massachusetts. I don't have that number in front of me now, but it is a lot bigger than I would have guessed.
But, maybe I need to read the entire article better, and maybe I didn't take the information with enough grains of salt.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think Massachusetts permits are "concealed" carry permits. In MA, you need a permission slip to even possess a firearm. Most permits to carry are restricted to certain activities, but I don't believe they are limited to concealed carry.

NONE – the LTC is issued for all lawful purposes with no restrictions.

EMPLOYMENT – restricts possession to business owner engaged in business activities or to an employee while engaged in work related activities, and maintaining proficiency, where the employer requires carry of a firearm (i.e. armored car, security guard, etc.). Includes travel to and from activity location.

TARGET & HUNTING – restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; and for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns). Includes travel to and from activity location

SPORTING – restricts possession to the purpose of lawful recreational shooting or competition; for use in the lawful pursuit of game animals and birds; for personal protection in the home; for the purpose of collecting (other than machine guns); and for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, cross country skiing, or similar activities. Includes travel to and from activity location.

OTHER – Restrictions are based upon the information provided in the license application. Please ensure that you provide a detailed reason for requesting the issuance of a license in Massachusetts. Include information regarding how and where you intend to possess or use a firearm and your knowledge and training in Massachusetts firearms laws.

 

[SSA]

An article from WCVB says:

BOSTON —
More than 1 in 10 Massachusetts residents is licensed to carry a firearm, according to the latest data available from the state.

And:

The Class A license is by far the most common type of gun license in the state. It allows residents to purchase and possess all large and small capacity firearms, rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It also allows the carrying of concealed handguns.