Other State A LEGAL PRECEDENT SUPPORTING NATIONWIDE CARRY WAS JUST CREATED

[L84Cabo]

This is fantastic news and will hopefully be the start of something big. A law abiding New Hampshire man crossed over into Massachusetts and was arrested for failing to have a MA license to carry. And the judge dismissed the charges under Bruen citing there is no historical basis to support a person's 2A rights ending at their state border. Hopefully this is the start of a national reciprocity movement or the elimination of CCW permits altogether since there is no historical basis for requiring citizens to beg for permission to exercise a right.

Massachusetts state court judge dismisses criminal charges brought by the State against a lawabiding New Hampshire resident for allegedly failing to having a license to carry before bringing a firearm into Massachusetts. Mark Smith discusses this decision.

Read More

 

[Yarome]

It's nice to see that some justices still actually "get it". Not that I wish it on the poor guy to have to have an ongoing legal battle, but it would be nice to see something like that going up the food chain and establish a supreme court precedent with nationwide impact.

If it's appealed, maybe one of our 2A warrior organizations will jump on it and help carry it home(?)

 

[L84Cabo]

If it's appealed, maybe one of our 2A warrior organizations will jump on it and help carry it home(?)

The antigun side isn't exactly known for being smart. But it would be pretty dumb of them to challenge this because their odds of beating it once it got up to SCOTUS is really slim given the judge's ruling is completely consistent with Bruen. And a SCOTUS ruling would then have very big implications throughout the entire country.

 

[nammac]

If there's going to be a requirement to pass a safe handling course, as Oregon has, or a live fire requirement as Florida has, before issuing a CCW/CHL permit, then it should be valid in all states and territories, just as a drivers license is.

Even better, a free people don't need to ask a government for permission to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right, nor a God given right.

Don't need a permit to exercise free speech, or freedom of religion, why does one need a permit to exercise the right to keep and bear arms????

 

[solv3nt]

If there's going to be a requirement to pass a safe handling course, as Oregon has, or a live fire requirement as Florida has, before issuing a CCW/CHL permit, then it should be valid in all states and territories, just as a drivers license is.

Add Hawaii to that list with some very strict marksmanship requirements.

The right to owning bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Opinion Coffey Comm v. Donnell.pdf

View and download Opinion Coffey Comm v. Donnell.pdf on DocDroid

docdro.id

The decision in case people don't want to watch the video.

 

[RVTECH]

Is the 'Massachusetts gun permit' that is at the root of this a CC permit OR just a general permit one must have to carry 'outside of the home' ? - which was mentioned several times in the memorandum.

My point being if this is NOT about CC, and just a permit to posses a firearm outside the home, how will it apply to the issue of nationwide CC and the possibility of the elimination of CC permits altogether?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Is the 'Massachusetts gun permit' that is at the root of this a CC permit OR just a general permit one must have to carry 'outside of the home' ? - which was mentioned several times in the memorandum.

My point being if this is NOT about CC, and just a permit to posses a firearm outside the home, how will it apply to the issue of nationwide CC and the possibility of the elimination of CC permits altogether?

Final page, final two paragraphs
""An individual only loses his constitutional right if he commits an offense or is or has been engaged in certain behavior that is covered by 18 USC sec 922. He does not lose that right simply by traveling into an adjoining State whose Statute mandates that residents of that State obtain a license prior to exercise that constitutional right. To hold otherwise would inexplicably treat Second Amendment right differently than other individually held rights.

Therefore the Court finds that GL.269. Sec 10(a) in unconstitutional as applied to this particularly situated defendant and Allows the motion to dismiss on that ground."

In Massachusetts, it is their law that requires residents to apply and acquire a license to carry (open or concealed, no difference) before they can carry any arms. And also, they have a different set of qualifications/treatment for non residents to acquire the same.

Edit
If the State (Commonwealth) of Massachusetts decides to appeal to SCOTUS, it is likely that SCOTUS can use that to make National Reciprocity a thing or to remove permit/carry licenses from States on the basis of Equal Protection Clause..

 

[Yarome]

Is the 'Massachusetts gun permit' that is at the root of this a CC permit OR just a general permit one must have to carry 'outside of the home' ? - which was mentioned several times in the memorandum.

My point being if this is NOT about CC, and just a permit to posses a firearm outside the home, how will it apply to the issue of nationwide CC and the possibility of the elimination of CC permits altogether?

MA requires an LTC card to possess or carry a handgun or at least an FID card for rifles/shotguns.

I didn't pick it up from the article which they were referring to, but I don't think it matters. If they guy had a firearm of any type without a MA issues 'whatever'... they can try and nail him.

I got the impression though that they were talking about the LTC since they brought up the mandatory minimum sentencing (even for first offenses) they were trying to shtick on the guy.

 

[RVTECH]

In Massachusetts, it is their law that requires resodents to apply and acquire a license to carry (open or concealed, no difference)

Got it - thanks!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ironically, this is the same State that got us Caetano.

 

[nammac]

This coming from the Birthplace of AmeriKa…

Disgusting…

 

[E4mafia]

I wonder if Murdock v Pennsylvania could be applied too

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) invalidated a city ordinance that required solicitors to obtain a license. The Court found the law infringed on the First Amendment rights.

mtsu.edu

https://downloads.regulations.gov/ATF-2018-0002-8606/attachment_1.pdf

 

[jayR]

The right to owning bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hoot... There's the makings of a t-shirt

 

[nwslopoke]

If Ma is listed as a reciprocity state on his CCL then there shouldn't be an issue. If they wanted a different standard then they shouldn't be on the list.

If they weren't on the list and this guy was rolling the dice, then he got lucky. When I go to California or on a rare flight, I go without and plan my trips for the safest outcomes.

 

[CamoDeafie]

If Ma is listed as a reciprocity state on his CCL then there shouldn't be an issue. If they wanted a different standard then they shouldn't be on the list.

If they weren't on the list and this guy was rolling the dice, then he got lucky. When I go to California or on a rare flight, I go without and plan my trips for the safest outcomes.

He's from New Hampshire. There's no requirement in NH to get a carry license, or even purchase license.

Edit. The document even talks about a specific shopping mall on the border of NH and MA that apparently have stores in both states. Edit 2. Massachusetts, just like Oregon and Washington.. does not have reciprocity with any of the 49 other States for carry licenses/permits

 

[CamoDeafie]

General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10

malegislature.gov

"Section 10. (a) Whoever, except as provided or exempted by statute, knowingly has in his possession; or knowingly has under his control in a vehicle; a firearm, loaded or unloaded, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty without either:

(1) being present in or on his residence or place of business; or

(2) having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section one hundred and thirty-one of chapter one hundred and forty; or

(3) having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty;

(4) having complied with the provisions of sections one hundred and twenty-nine C and one hundred and thirty-one G of chapter one hundred and forty; or

(5) having complied as to possession of an air rifle or BB gun with the requirements imposed by section twelve B; and whoever knowingly has in his possession; or knowingly has under control in a vehicle; a rifle or shotgun, loaded or unloaded, without either:

(1) being present in or on his residence or place of business; or

(2) having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section one hundred and thirty-one of chapter one hundred and forty; or

(3) having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty; or

(4) having in effect a firearms identification card issued under section one hundred and twenty-nine B of chapter one hundred and forty; or

(5) having complied with the requirements imposed by section one hundred and twenty-nine C of chapter one hundred and forty upon ownership or possession of rifles and shotguns; or

(6) having complied as to possession of an air rifle or BB gun with the requirements imposed by section twelve B; shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years, or for not less than 18 months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 18 months, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 18 months of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subsection a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; or to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric service unavailable at said institution. Prosecutions commenced under this subsection shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.

No person having in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose, issued under section one hundred and thirty-one or section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty shall be deemed to be in violation of this section.

The provisions of section eighty-seven of chapter two hundred and seventy-six shall not apply to any person 18 years of age or older, charged with a violation of this subsection, or to any child between ages fourteen and 18 so charged, if the court is of the opinion that the interests of the public require that he should be tried as an adult for such offense instead of being dealt with as a child.

The provisions of this subsection shall not affect the licensing requirements of section one hundred and twenty-nine C of chapter one hundred and forty which require every person not otherwise duly licensed or exempted to have been issued a firearms identification card in order to possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in his residence or place of business."


Edit. This specific Statute effectively says you have to have a license to possess any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, outside your residence or place of business, in Massachusetts.

 

[ajgunner]

I read a pretty good statement on this stuff recently.
Basically it asked if a person should have a mental heath certificate before they could pay to get a permit to allow them entry to a church of their choice.
Or perhaps an IQ test should be required before a person could write anything for the high school newspaper. Of course they would have to pass at a certain level before they could put their thoughts into writing. And prior to doing any publishing of their writing they would have to bring their IQ test to some government official and pay to get their license prior to their doing any publishing.

The scenarios go on and on. Basically the only amendment being trampled on and abused is number 2.

 

[CamoDeafie]

What would make things interesting is if say..the 27 Constitutional/permitless concealed carry States, pass laws to the effect saying that law abiding citizens who do not reside in these 27 States, have full 2A protection and can carry how they please, within Federal and State regulations.

 

[billdeserthills]

Supreme Court eliminates concealed carry laws & creates carry across State lines

progressive bleating to soon follow!