The Bruen decision may have made some things too muddy for some anti-gun activists — and by that, I mean they now have to actually show why a law is constitutional rather than just coast — but one thing was perfectly clear. Everyone was entitled to due process, meaning the requirements for a permit had to be objective, rather than subjective.
Before that, the “good cause” requirement used by many states allowed officials to deny permits left and right, while the politically connected could get one with a phone call. The fact that the system encouraged corruption was rarely acknowledged by proponents, if ever.
Massachusetts, though, has a problem. They’re being sued because, unsurprisingly for such an anti-gun state, they’re still using subjective standards.
The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Pratt v. Westbrook, a case challenging subjective carry permit denials.
SAF is joined in the brief by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The brief was filed by attorney Jason Guida, who served as local counsel pro bono.
The brief argues that Massachusetts laws related to carry permit issuance, which empower licensing authorities to deny a license to carry based on a subjective determination that an applicant is “unsuitable” or “may create a risk to public safety,” are unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The statutes at issue allow precisely the kind of discretionary “appraisal of facts, exercise of judgment, and formation of an opinion” that Bruen’s footnote 9 held is incompatible with a shall-issue regime.
“Bruen already resolved this question,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “A licensing official may check objective, ministerial criteria – prohibited-person status, completed training and the like. What the official may not do is decide whether an applicant ‘may’ pose a risk based on old, unproven allegations. Massachusetts’ suitability standard is textbook subjective discretion, and it cannot stand.”
In this case, Holyoke Police Chief David Pratt denied Westbrook a carry license based on charges from more than a decade earlier that never resulted in a conviction. The brief contends neither Bruen nor the historical tradition of firearm regulation supports permanently (or indefinitely) stripping a law-abiding adult of the right to public carry on the basis of non-conviction allegations from over a decade prior. Recent Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Rahimi and United States v. Hemani confirm that any disarmament of non-convicted persons must be temporary and tied to current dangerousness, and both are limitations the Massachusetts statute lacks.
Now, convictions might be one thing, but charges in and of themselves are not disqualifying. Not even in Massachusetts, especially since there’s no way they’d survive legal challenge. The “unsuitable” standard was, hypothetically, about denying permits to those who were likely to engage in acts of violence. The bully who only had misdemeanor assault charges, for example.
Yet it’s still nothing but a new subjective standard, which Bruen said was not acceptable. Not in the least. It’s “good cause” but in reverse.
And the thing is, to many people, it seems so reasonable. Obviously, the guy they know is the biggest drug dealer in town shouldn’t get a permit. No one wants the town bully to get one.
The problem is that “biggest drug dealer” might also just be someone who keeps a business going through other, legal means, rather than something nefarious going on in the back room, even if no one believes it. The town bully might be a jackass, but he might also have gotten death threats and wants to protect himself because of them.
Officials don’t get to decide who can exercise their rights, and this case is about that at its very core.
Massachusetts needs to get swatted down and swatted down hard for this. It’s clear as day that this is the same thing that led to the Bruen case, only the anti-gun officials there haven’t learned.
The fact that this is the birthplace of the American Revolution, and where Lexington and Concord happened — which started because of British gun control efforts, for the record — is downright offensive.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
