The 2022 landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen Supreme Court decision found that under the Second Amendment, bear does mean outside the home for self-defense. The challenge was to a New York discretionary law where issuing authorities could demand an applicant show a special need in order to be able to get a permit. The High Court tossed such prohibitions and as a result, some states have had to adjust to this historically accurate standard. Citizens in some states have been liberated by this decision, while others are now being punished.
Massachusetts was one such state that was affected by the decision. Permitting in the Bay State was discretionary – and still is – prior to the Bruen decision.
One of the important things to realize when it comes to Massachusetts is that approximately 6% to 10% of the population are license-to-carry holders. That means that when Bay Staters are walking around doing their grocery shopping or are out in public, there are legally armed citizens in the vicinity. That’s the way the law has been for years, without incident.
Did/does Massachusetts have some jurisdictions that disfavor those who wish to exercise their right? Yes. Boston and some of the other big cities have subverted the rights of citizens for years.
In practice, Massachusetts has been a state where 90% of the jurisdictions issued licenses to carry without any restrictions. Why? Because this is normal.
Bruen-Response Laws
There has been an inrush of legislation in states that have Democratic voter bases. New York, the state that started this, was the first to create new restrictive laws. Following suit, there has been New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Maryland and now Massachusetts, all enacting so-called “Bruen-response” laws.
Instead of having “need” provisions for applicants to be eligible for licenses to carry, legislatures wrote into law other roadblocks. New Jersey’s law change involved the “temperament” of applicants. New York swapped out “proper cause” with a “good moral character” requirement. And the Bay State changed “good reason” to making sure the applicant is not “unsuitable.”
These are all clearly semantical games. It’s the subjectivity of the requirements that make them verboten under the Bruen decision. Footnote #9 of Bruen, it’s stated permits must have “narrow, objective and definite standards.”
The other thing that states added to their laws has to do with so-called “sensitive locations.” Gun-free zones were greatly expanded. New Jersey’s list of sensitive locations is over 25 statutorily defined spots, including places such as state forests, zoos, parks and any private property.
Blanket prohibitions or broadly defined sensitive locations were addressed. Justice Thomas observed in the Bruen decision that, “Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”
Nothing in any of these laws passed will actually contribute to measurable public safety improvements. Massachusetts is no different than the other states that have decided to flippantly go against the Supreme Court’s opinion by playing legislative games.
Massachusetts Clamps Down on Individual Rights
Changes to Chapter 135 of Massachusetts law via H.4885 have been forced into effect after enactment.
Aside from jumping on the anti-Bruen bandwagon, all these changes are going to do is punish the law-abiding license-to-carry holders in Massachusetts. People who have been exercising their rights for 20-plus years in Massachusetts by bearing arms in public without incident will be severely stifled.
Boston, Springfield, Worcester, Cambridge, etc. need to get over the fact that Bruen happened. It’s been written, the peasants shall have their pitchforks.
NYSRPA v. Bruen is a historic opinion designed to restore liberties to those who had them taken by overzealous governmental officials. The decision has made concealed carry a reality in New Jersey, and even with draconian provisions added to the law, liberty is at a net positive. Sadly, in Massachusetts, the land where the shot heard around the world was fired, the people are losing rights they’ve had for decades.
The Civil Rights Coalition Petition Drive
When citizens banded together in Massachusetts to bring a ballot measure to the people, Governor Maura Healey made a draconian and anti-freedom move. If the group, the Civil Rights Coalition, was to be successful in gathering around 50,000 signatures from verified voters in the state, they would have stalled the new Bruen-response law from going into full effect.
What the petition would have done was stopped the effective date, and then forced the law onto the next eligible ballot. In this case, that would have been in 2026. When Healey saw that the group was dangerously close to meeting their goal, she signed an emergency preamble to law – AFTER THE FACT – which nullified the stalling of the law. Since this move was made, the law has gone into effect on certain provisions.
Where does that leave the people? The Civil Rights Coalition reported that they gathered over 95,000 signatures, shooting over the original goal. This is bittersweet, as they do have the signatures needed to bring the law up to a vote, but the governor neutered a big portion of the relief the measure was supposed to provide.
If any other minority group or civil liberty were treated the way the post-Bruen tantrums have inflicted upon the law-abiding gun owners, the left of center progressives would be flipping tables like the carpenter on the shabbat.
This is all beyond spiteful and Governor Maura Healey has shown her true authoritarian anti-freedom colors.
Read the full article here
