<![CDATA[Gun Owners Action League]]>

Massachusetts politicians continue to thumb their noses at SCOTUS

July 20, 2022 by John Petrolino Leave a Comment

Since the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision came down, there’s been a flurry of things to report on concerning the Second Amendment. So much so, a good drinking game would be any time an article about “gun stuff” is read, and you get to the word “Bruen”, you have to drink. I’ve covered to a large extent the shenanigans going on up in Massachusetts, and they haven’t seemed to quit yet. Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has been putting the pins to the state concerning how issuing authorities are to go forward with their permitting schemes. Letters and directives have been flying back and forth. I just got word that James “Big Jim” Wallace, the Executive Director of GOAL, got a direct reply from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Are they thumbing their nose at them? They are thumbing their nose, but they are not thumbing it at them. Right…

From GOAL:

Last week, the Secretary of Public Safety and Security sent us the below letter in response to our demand that the Commonwealth’s Executive Agencies follow the precedent established by the Bruen decision. As you can see, the Agency has dug in their heels and maintains that their interpretation is consistent with the decision. We still disagree with their interpretation and assert that a subjective “suitability” standard should no longer be considered in the licensing process as it is unconstitutional under Bruen.
GOAL believes the government of the Commonwealth has an obligation to protect the civil rights of all citizens – regardless of political favor or disfavor. It is clear that the Massachusetts government has no intention of either following the text or spirit of this ruling. With this unacceptable response, it is likely that we will see Massachusetts respond as some of the other outlier states have and move to pass legislation that will create even more restrictions on our civil rights.

The letter sent to GOAL and Wallace basically says they don’t believe that how they intend on continuing on would run afoul of the Constitution. The letter, which you can read in full below, seems to flaunt the fact they’re walking the fine line between subjective and objective requirements. The NYSRPA v. Bruen decision was supposed to remove all subjective requirements, but the Bay State says otherwise.

Dear Director Wallace:
Thank you for your July 5, 2022, letter expressing your concerns with the Joint Advisory Regarding the Massachusetts Firearm Licensing System After the Supreme Court Decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, issued by the Office of the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS). We have reviewed your concerns about our analysis of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and its impact on Massachusetts’s firearms licensing. We stand by our interpretation of the ruling and the guidance provided in the Joint Advisory.
The Joint Advisory informs licensing authorities and law enforcement officials that they should no longer deny or impose restrictions on a license to carry because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm. In compliance with Bruen, the Firearms Records Bureau will no longer print licenses with restrictions. The Joint Advisory also makes clear, that consistent with Bruen, it remains unlawful to carry a firearm in Massachusetts without a license and that licensing authorities can and should continue to enforce the suitability and prohibited persons elements of the statute.
As noted in the Joint Advisory, Massachusetts’s strong gun safety laws have consistently led us to have among the country’s lowest rates of gun violence and gun-related deaths. EOPSS will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that Massachusetts remains a leader in keeping our residents safe.

There you have it, they said they’re right and that’s that.

Something that needs to be considered, and I see jurisdictions in the state getting into a big quagmire over this, is that in Massachusetts, the way an individual has to go about to buy a handgun is to have a license to carry. If the state is conceding that they’re not issuing any restricted licenses anymore, and if they’re going to use suitability as a way to stonewall applicants, they’re going to be stopping people from being able to purchase handguns.

The barring of handgun procurement would not hold up to Constitutional muster. There’s a long history around the MA license to carry, classifications thereof, firearms identification cards, and the rest. The permitting all got sorted out a few years ago to make things easier. My suspicion is that the executive branch will have to coerce the legislature to pass new laws, reverting back to a confusing system, if they want Boston and the few other hold out jurisdictions to be able to continue to usurp people’s rights.

We’re going to have to wait and see how many injury claims add up as these jurisdictions either grant or deny licenses.

I reached out to Wallace about this bird he got in the mail from the state and he had the following sentiments to share:

What is abundantly clear is all corners and crevasses of the Commonwealth’s government are joining forces to stymie the restoration of our civil rights as clearly outlined in Bruen. In the fight for civil rights by many groups throughout US history, these efforts have always had two distinct battle fronts: The first is to win a major court battle to have civil rights recognized. The second, and perhaps more difficult, is to overcome the social bigotry. Not just from individuals, but from our own state and local governments who simply refuse to acknowledge what has transpired. There is no doubt from the Commonwealth’s response that the latter fight will be intentionally dragged out as long as possible!

Big Jim is right on his assertions. It’s become obvious that RINO Charlie Baker is allowing the Attorney General to ignore the ruling. I’d like to say that we all knew this kind of stuff would happen, but maybe I’m so quixotic and altruistic that I thought it’d only take a wack or two on the nose with a rolled up paper to get the disobedient dogs in line. Clearly some dogs need remedial training before they do what they’re supposed to do. New York and Massachusetts, clearly pound bound if they refuse to heel.

As Gun Owners’ Action League continues to work behind the scenes and play correspondence wars with the state, we’ll monitor the situation. GOAL has been working to see legislation passed to sort this all out, as well as their normal below the radar efforts. The state is painting themselves into a corner and GOAL and the other organizations see that. The real question is, does the state realize that in the end they’re really just thumbing their nose at themselves?

Massachusetts 2A group says officials trying to “cling to unconstitutional and bigoted” gun control laws

July 8, 2022 by John Petrolino Leave a Comment

Oh Massachusetts! Out of all the states requiring resources, I really thought that the matter of putting up roadblocks on carry would be a vestige of what now remains. I feel like I’ve been handed a chat history between dissenting partners during a lover’s quarrel, and some of it is just too good. And by that I mean the tongue lashings you’re getting from our friends over at Gun Owners Action League (GOAL).

GOAL reported the other day that the Attorney General and executive branch in the Bay State are doubling down on their awful guidance and position statements. An “FAQ” that GOAL shared with their membership shows the administration’s continued non-commitment to making their policies constitutionally sound. The lastest from the AG’s cache of passive aggressive text messages involves the subject of restriction removal from current licenses to carry issued in the Commonwealth.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Practical Effects of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
This document is intended to be read in conjunction with the Joint Advisory Regarding the Massachusetts Firearms Licensing System After the Supreme Court’s Decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which advisory was issued on July 1, 2022 by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (the “Advisory”). Each licensing authority should review the Advisory as well as the decision in Bruen with its own counsel to ensure that its procedures are in compliance with the requirements of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments described therein.
This document is intended only as a practical guide for using the Department of Criminal Justice Information Service’s (“DCJIS”) Massachusetts Instant Record Check System (“MIRCS”) to comply with the requirements of Bruen.
Whose responsibility is it to remove restrictions? If a Massachusetts licensing authority needs to remove any restriction on any licenses to carry firearms (“LTC”) which it has issued, then it is the responsibility of the licensing authority to use MIRCS to remove the restriction.
When do I need to remove restrictions? Whether and when you need to re-issue existing restricted licenses so that they no longer display a restriction on them are questions that you will need to answer after reviewing the Advisory as well as the decision in Bruen with your own counsel.
How do I use MIRCS to remove restrictions? Licensing authorities can remove restrictions in MIRCS through the “Update the Restriction of a License” queue. Once the license is updated and restrictions are removed, the Firearms Records Bureau will process, print, and mail the license to the licensing authority.
Will the Firearms Records Bureau continue to print licenses with restrictions? No. The Firearms Records Bureau will no longer print licenses with restrictions. LTCs with restrictions that are currently “pending activation by FRB” and any subsequent licenses submitted with restrictions will be sent back for review by the licensing officer to re-submit with a restriction of “none.”

This FAQ document could have been best summed up differently. What are the practical effects of NYSRPA v. Bruen? The practical effects are Massachusetts and their ilk need to stop playing games, remove all roadblocks in these processes, and accept the loss. The big “L”.

At what point do authorities become contempt of court? New York’s gotta be there, after all the orders were directed at them. But the opinion was rather inclusive pointing out that Massachusetts and other states had equally unconstitutional provisions in their laws.

Not taking this one on the chin, GOAL opened up a reply window and zapped off another scathing and well put missive. In this one, Executive Director James “Big Jim” Wallace, had to spell it out for the Governor, et.al. yet again.

What’s the deal? Massachusetts and New Jersey, both states that allegedly are tied at having the best public education systems in the country. How is it that they can make such claims while being so completely daft and ignorant? Their leadership clearly did not benefit from the educational system because they can’t comprehend simple instructions from the Supreme Court. From behind the woodshed we hear Wallace bellow:

Dear Governor Baker,
We once again find ourselves demanding that you retract and revise the advisory (“FAQ”) released by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) on July 5, 2022. This specific advisory/FAQ concerned the landmark civil rights decision handed down on June 23, 2022 by the United States Supreme Court in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., ET AL v. Bruen ET AL..
In this instance we are forced to address the unacceptable, and we believe, unconstitutional, guidance released by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS). Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) and our members have been eagerly awaiting official guidance from the Commonwealth regarding the now illegal restricted firearm licenses. Unfortunately, the guidance your administration has released is not in compliance with this decision and has caused chaos across the Commonwealth.
The document your administration released states:
“This document is intended only as a practical guide for using the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS), Massachusetts Instant Record Check System (MIRCS) to comply with the requirements of Bruen.”
Given the previous advisory released, we were not surprised to find this most recent advisory to be neither practical nor in compliance with Bruen!
The advisory bullet points begin with: “Whose responsibility is it to remove restrictions?” The only thing that should been have stated here is that there is no need to remove any restrictions as they are all now illegal and unenforceable. The advisory should have been a true representation of Bruen by informing all law enforcement, throughout the state, that all restrictions on firearm licenses are now illegal and cannot be enforced.
The release also goes further to incorrectly advise local licensing authorities: “Whether and when you need to re-issue existing restricted licenses so that they no longer display a restriction on them are questions that you will need to answer after reviewing the Advisory as well as the decision in Bruen with your own counsel.”
Why would the local authorities need to re-issue anything? Since all firearm licenses issued in Massachusetts are a state license, the Firearms Record Bureau (FRB) should immediately review their records to identify any illegally restricted licenses. Upon establishing those records, the FRB should automatically reprint all such licenses removing any restrictions and re-issue them immediately. Why is the Commonwealth wasting municipal resources and lawful citizens’ time to attempt to rectify a matter that the state can easily address within in its own system?
It also advises local authorities that prior to doing away with restrictions that they should: “…after reviewing the Advisory as well as the decision in Bruen with your own counsel.” What possibly exists to review? Specifically, what is there to review with legal counsel on the local level regarding now illegal state licenses? Unless of course they are refusing to comply with the Constitution and are preparing to defend themselves against a civil rights lawsuit!
The entire release is a brazen attempt by the Commonwealth to shed its responsibility to ensure that the State’s firearm licensing system is run in a constitutional manner. It is astonishingly clear that the State is once again using what amounts to local licenses agents as political and constitutional cover!
This continued official effort to cling to unconstitutional and bigoted laws is unconscionable. The days of restricting the civil rights of lawful citizens in a bogus effort to reduce crime is over.
Governor, Massachusetts is world renowned as the birthplace of liberty. You now have a rare and historic opportunity to actually restore lost liberty. The decisions you make today will be reflected in your Gubernatorial legacy. Your simple choices are to either restore our civil rights or continue your efforts to stifle civil rights and personal liberties. Governors throughout the history of the United States who have chosen the latter are held in very low regard.

It really is such a simple process. The order should be that all restrictions on the licenses are invalidated. They won’t be issuing restricted LTCs in the future, so why is this even a conversation?

Like New York State dealing with New York City, Massachusetts has to deal with Boston. We all know that most of this is driven by Beantown. Sure, some other power hungry jurisdictions like to control the people. But part and parcel, most of the issuing authorities in Massachusetts honors the Second Amendment the best they can within the confines of the awful laws there. Boston and the few other outlier cites just don’t want the people to be able to exercise their Second Amendment.

If Charlie Baker had any stones, he’d tell Boston they’re on their own and can make their own ordinances to mess things up for themselves. The rest of the state leans towards compliance while the Attorney General is over here playing these word games wondering what the effects of the decision are. “Game over man, game over.” Those are the effects.

We have to salute groups like Gun Owners Action League for standing up for the non-gentry. Whoever fired the shot heard around the world must be rolling in their grave. What’s going to happen next? Who knows. But, I’m going to have my popcorn ready for the next round of messages in this toxic relationship. Bay Staters really are being battered by their public masters, and thankfully GOAL’s standing by to not have ’em put in the corner.

Massachusetts keeping their heels dug in on NYSRPA

July 1, 2022 by John Petrolino Leave a Comment

On more than one occasion the Bay State has appeared within the pages of Bearing Arms, and honestly, they deserve it. The state that was born from “extreme tolerance”, that of hanging those who were different and thus labeled “witches”, still has a wisp of that mentality. When it comes to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, Massachusetts does everything in their power to keep people from exercising that right. Afterall, wouldn’t a government that was complicit in executing their adversaries want an unarmed populace? But what of NYSRPA v. Bruen? Apparently the most dangerous state in New England intends on making zero changes until forced to. Our friends over at Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) has the scoop.

Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) has received numerous inquiries concerning the state of Massachusetts gun laws following the historic civil rights ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The case, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, ruled against state and local governments requiring a reason or special purpose for lawful citizens to exercise their Second Amendment Civil Rights. The court cited the Fourteenth Amendment in making it clear that so-called, may issue, suitability, and special requirements are unacceptable.
Many of the questions GOAL has been getting circle around whether the specific laws in the Commonwealth that are in obvious violation of this ruling are still going to be enforced. Well, it appears we have our answer to that question.
In spite of this landmark civil rights ruling, both Governor Baker and Attorney General Healey have declared that the State laws in place prior to the SCOTUS ruling will continue to be enforced.

That’s right, anti-civil rights Healey, the Attorney General who arbitrarily via her own pen, abolished the sale of the AR-15 in Massachusetts, and RINO Charlie Baker, who had what I’d consider a less than satisfactory response to the pandemic coming from a so-called Republican, are going to allow for unconstitutional laws to stand. Even in la República de Nueva Jersey, where I hail from, the swamp creatures did concede some defeat in the administrative removal of “justifiable need” in order for the normal peasants to get a CCW. Not from the land of where the shot heard around the world was fired.

GOAL is working to circle the wagons for their members and gun owners at large.

In order to determine the safest course of action for our members, and for GOAL, we have been working with other advocacy groups and attorneys in the Commonwealth to figure out what this ruling means for Massachusetts. Even though the ruling seems clear in its intent, the effects on the Commonwealth’s licensing scheme and on current license holders are not-especially given the statements by our Governor and Attorney General on the matter. Therefore, before we can offer any information to our members on what the ruling does, we need to make sure to do our due diligence and ensure that anything we release to our members is accurate and legal. In the meantime, thank you to all of our members for your continued support and patience allowing GOAL to do what we do best.

What are the citizens of Massachusetts up against? Here are the comments from the two swamp creatures in question:

“The Baker-Polito Administration is proud of the Commonwealth’s nation-leading gun laws and history of enacting bipartisan gun reform legislation. The Court’s ruling on New York’s licensing law has no immediate effect on the Commonwealth’s gun laws, which all remain in place,” – RINO Governor Charlie Baker

“In a country flooded with firearms, today’s reckless and anti-democratic decision poses a grave danger to Americans as they go about their daily lives in public spaces like supermarkets, hospitals, and playgrounds. Gun violence is a public health epidemic, and I remain committed to doing everything I can to keep our residents and our communities safe. Massachusetts has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country because we know that strong gun laws save lives. I stand by our commonsense gun laws and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce them.” – Attorney General Maura Healey

Baker’s true colors are shining through. He’s a self-imposed lame duck politician by not running for reelection. The favored Republican that’s running to take his spot, Geoff Diehl, on paper and mostly in his votes, is considered a gun rights supporter. He has done interviews stating his support, but in my opinion has a questionable history due to his vote in the MA legislature outlawing “bump stocks”. All of his other votes do seem to be aligned with 2A support though. A sidebar, on March 19th I did reach out to Diehl’s office for an interview request, which went unanswered (I did interview all 4 GOP candidates for Governor in NJ’s last election on Second Amendment issues). Diehl needs to answer for that bump stock vote in my opinion.

The Democratic frontrunner for the election of the next Governor is none other than Healey herself. No further comments needed and suffice it to say Diehl is a no-brainer on who to vote for in the election. The NRA has given Diehl an A rating in past election cycles.

Massachusetts has their work cut out for them when it comes to their upcoming gubernatorial election and in battling established and future unconstitutional laws. The climate is so awful up there that the current Republican Governor is so hubris to say that the NYSRPA opinion “has no immediate effect on the Commonwealth’s gun laws”, which just means he’s complicit in allowing unconstitutional law to be enforced. Nevermind Healey’s word salad talking about an “anti-democratic decision” in the Republic, and conflating so-called gun violence with law abiding citizens exercising their rights.

Much like California, Massaschustts is going into a post NYSRPA world kicking and screaming. Cam best put it the other day on his show. These progressive leftists are going between disbelief and anger through their grieving process. The ignoring of the ruling in some areas, doxing of gun owners in others, and lashing out against the law abiding via more laws being passed in NY, NJ, & CA, and more to come I’m sure, are all part of their inability to cope with their loss. The death of their only ace in the hole to keep citizens disarmed (under their own control) will be mourned for decades to come. The “need” standards in the final “may-issue” states was their baby, and it’s gone. It’s time for the progressives to have their memorial, bury the corpse of liberty squishing policy, and move on. We’ll hold vigil with them annually on Thomas’s birthday, but really to celebrate our liberation from their tyranny.

Thankfully we have groups like New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners Action League, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Firearms Policy Coalition, etc. etc. etc. to smack these tyrants on the nose, or when needed, completely subdue them.