Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Massachusetts]]>

Riding shotgun with an amazing 2A advocate

by Leave a Comment

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to spend some time showing Riding Shotgun with Charlie host Charlie Cook all the sights and sounds that Farmville, Virginia and the surrounding countryside has to offer. While that episode won’t be released until next week, I’m thrilled that Charlie could join me on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co today to talk about his popular show and podcast as well as the latest threats to 2A rights in Charlie’s home state of Massachusetts.

If you’ve never seen or listened to Riding Shotgun with Charlie before now, the good news is that you have more than 150 episodes to catch up on, including Charlie’s rides with folks like the Second Amendment Foundation’s Adam Kraut, competitive shooter and 2A advocate Gabby Franco, and Bearing Arms contributor John Petrolino. Charlie is an entertaining and engaging host (as well as a pretty good driver to boot), and I think RSWC is just as fun to watch as it is to participate in.

Charlie’s a Second Amendment advocate in his own right, as well as a certified firearms instructor in Massachusetts, and I asked him during today’s show what life has been like for gun owners in the state since the Bruen decision was handed down last July. While lawmakers didn’t immediately approve new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of the SCOTUS opinion upholding the right to bear arms in self-defense, several legislators have been holding a “listening tour” around the state. Ostensibly this is supposed to let both sides in the gun control debate hear from each other, but Cook says when he attended Monday night’s stop focused on guns and domestic violence, he couldn’t help but notice that virtually every “expert” on the assembled panel was of one mind when it came to slapping more gun control laws on the books.

“There was one woman on the panel who works with women… who said she had an intimate partner who was a prohibited person who had a firearm illegally. And I’m thinking to myself ‘arrggghhh’. You know, we already have laws that say he’s a prohibited person and he can’t get a gun, but he got ahold of one illegally and he’s someone who can’t have one. And you’re still concerned about me being able to legally get a gun?”

“I got to be one of the last speakers of the evening,” Cook continued. “And I got up and said ‘listen, here’s the deal… if you’re going to have a panel that focuses partly on guns, you should probably get someone who’s on the gun side instead of everyone being on the non-gun side.’ I told them that if we’re really thinking about how we can empower women and save them from the bad situations that they’re in why don’t we offer them free training, offer them licenses for free, and fast-track their licenses so that they can get a firearm and protect themselves.”

Don’t look for Massachusetts lawmakers to adopt that idea, even though I think it’s a good one. While Cook says that Gov. Maura Healey hasn’t been quite as focused on gun control as she was when she was Attorney General, lawmakers have picked up the slack and have offered up a number of bills this session aimed at cracking down on legal gun ownership, including one proposal that would require a firearms license simply to attend a gun show.

It’s enough to make many gun owners in the state throw up their hands and head for freedom in other states; something that Cook says may be in his future as well. For now, though, Cook’s home base is still in one of the most anti-gun states around, and he and other 2A advocates are doing a great job of defending their fundamental rights in an incredibly challenging environment. I appreciate Charlie Cook joining me on Cam & Co today, but I’m even more grateful for his voice and his continued activism in support of our Second Amendment rights. Be sure to check out our conversation below, and stay tuned for the RSWC featuring yours truly, which will be coming out on March 28th.

Massachusetts lawmaker thinks gun show attendance should require a license

by Leave a Comment

A tip of the hat to the Firearms Policy Coalition’s invaluable Rob Romano for finding this little legislative nugget from Massachusetts, which manages to infringe on both the First and Second Amendment in just a few short paragraphs.

While Rep. Carlos Gonzalez’s bill was introduced a month ago, so far it hasn’t received a hearing in the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, and hopefully that remains the case. But if lawmakers do decide to make HB 2334 a priority and this terrible bill gets enshrined into state law groups like the Gun Owners Action League and Commonwealth 2A are going to have a field day challenging the measure in court.

Ostensibly the reason for this egregious violation of the right of association is to crack down on illegal gun trafficking in the state. But Massachusetts law already requires all gun owners to possess either a firearms ID card for long guns or a License to Carry for handguns, as well as subjecting the vast majority of firearm transfers to background checks. Additionally, any and all private transfers are supposed to be reported to the state’s Department of Criminal Justice Information Services by both the buyer and seller of the firearm.

That provision is already constitutionally questionable enough, but Gonzalez’s proposal treads all over the rights of Massachusetts residents. Why should you need a license to carry or a firearms ID card simply to walk through the doors of a gun show or a gun club meeting? There are plenty of non-gun owners who attend gun shows, whether they’re thinking about buying a gun for themselves, checking out some of the non-firearm vendors, or even accompanying a gun-owning friend or family member. Gonzalez believes that should be a crime, albeit one subject to a financial penalty and not prison time.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and that restriction has been placed on states and local governments as well thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has weighed in repeatedly on the issue as well, including its opinion in NAACP v. Alabama in 1958 that stated, in part; “It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”

By seeking to require all gun show attendees to possess a valid firearms license, Gonzalez is chilling the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all Second Amendment supporters in the state. You have to be 21-years-old to obtain a LTC in Massachusetts, and while firearm ID cards are theoretically available to individuals 15-years-old and up, many young adults would be unable to walk through the doors of a gun show without risking a $300 fine. And there’s no exception in Gonzalez’s bill for minors accompanied by licensed adults, so the common sight of families strolling through the aisles and perusing the firearms on display would be a thing of the past if Gonzalez gets his way.

I think that’s likely the real motivation behind Gonzalez’s bad idea, despite framing it as an anti-gun trafficking measure. We’ve seen similar attempts to bar minors from gun shows in California, as well as efforts to ban gun shows from taking place on state-owned property; measures that California Rifle & Pistol Association president Chuck Michel says are aimed at obliterating gun culture altogether, or at the very least making gun ownership socially and culturally taboo as well as a legally dangerous proposition.

For now, Gonzalez’s bill appears stuck in committee, but given the anti-gun majorities in the legislature and the fact that this year’s session will last until January 2, 2024 there’s plenty of opportunity for the legislation to start moving. We’ll be keeping a close eye on the bill in the weeks ahead, but now would be a great time for Massachusetts gun owners to exercise their freedom of speech and tell their own state reps and senators what they think of Gonzalez’s outrageous assault on their fundamental right to peaceably assemble with like-minded lovers of liberty and defenders of the right to keep and bear arms.

“Live fire” tests for gun owners violates Second Amendment, says… Harvard Law Review?

by Leave a Comment

My buddy Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League likes to refer to Massachusetts as a “Second Amendment battleground state”, and he’s not wrong. Beleaguered gun owners in the Bay State are subjected to a host of unreasonable restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms, and if anything the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen has only made anti-gun activists and politicians more eager to slap more laws on the books.

Under the pre-Bruen standard, local licensing authorities had broad discretion in approving or denying applicants for a License to Carry, and Wallace has previously told us that many jurisdictions are trying to get around the Supreme Court’s decision. State lawmakers are even pushing to require applicants to demonstrate their proficiency with a firearm by requiring live fire training and passing a test, something GOAL says is completely unnecessary.

Now a new article in the Harvard Law Review says those mandates aren’t just unneeded, they’re unconstitutional. The article focuses on the licensing process in Boston, where police already require applicants to pass a “shooting qualification test” at the local police range within two weeks of submitting an application. All would-be pistol owners (a LTC is required to own, purchase, and carry a handgun) must demonstrate “safe handling of, and familiarity with, a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver” as well as completing a scored live-fire test; requirements that have no analogues in history, according to the author.

The City of Boston could presumptively argue that its Qualification Test, which requires an LTC application to obtain a quantifiable point tally on a scored target, is the type of objective test that Justice Thomas deemed constitutional.

But that contention misconstrues Bruen. First, the Bruen majority did not hold that all objective licensing requirements are constitutional, for even an objective test must not “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” And a shall-issue permitting scheme “can be put toward abusive ends.” Because the Qualification Test requires applicants to fire a heavy, unpopular handgun accurately, which not everyone can do, it impedes law-abiding citizens from exercising their armed self-defense right — the right to public carry is reserved only for those who shoot well with a heavy handgun. Second, Justice Thomas stated that background checks and firearms safety courses are constitutional, but a shooting qualification test is not a firearms safety course. Thus, Bruen does not support the proposition that scored live-fire tests survive judicial scrutiny. The Qualification Test’s quantitative characteristics may mitigate its constitutional deficiencies but do not cure them. In addition to accuracy, the Qualification Test demands that applicants show “safe handling of, and familiarity with, a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver.” The City of Boston does not provide any concrete guidelines, like a scoring rubric, for the safe-handling requirement, and licensing officials may have differing opinions on the matter. Such requirements do not resemble the “narrow, objective, and definite standards” that Justice Thomas referenced as per se constitutional.

According to the author of the law review article, Boston’s requirement is already ripe for a court challenge, and any move by the state to impose similar live-fire mandates on all LTC applicants would face stiff legal headwinds.

Based on the City of Boston’s facially unconstitutional licensing regime, any Boston resident can seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for the City’s infringing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This Note does not purport to discuss all the mechanics of either standing or § 1983 liability. As a general matter, however, it bears mentioning that an aggrieved applicant could assert a plausible claim for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against City of Boston licensing officials, the colonel of the Massachusetts State Police, and certain state firearms officials, subject to any affirmative defenses raised by the government.

It’s refreshing (to say the least) to see an article casting doubt on the constitutionality of a Massachusetts gun control law in the pages of the Harvard Law Review, and I hope this is the start of a trend. Far too many academic institutions have seemingly adopted a post-Bruen position of supporting any and all gun control laws, or at least criticizing those court decisions that have ruled a particular law unconstitutional. Some, like the University of Minnesota, have even enshrined anti-gun activism into the curriculum in the wake of Bruen. I’m sure that the prevailing attitude at Harvard Law is still anti-2A, but at least the Harvard Law Journal is willing to print and publish pieces that take both Bruen and the right to keep and bear arms seriously.

Massachusetts gun rights organization points out state’s stun gun fail

by Leave a Comment

Massachusetts is not known for embracing civil liberties. The sweet irony of the land where the shot heard around the world was fired from is that the elite ruling class in the Bay State loathes freedom and rights. We must remember that the commonwealth used to be in the practice of lynching people that they suspected were witches, aka people who were different or they disagreed with. As far as the right to keep and bear arms, Massachusetts makes things as restrictive as they can, and they were one of those jurisdictions that was forced into allowing the possession of electric arms. After the 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts case that the Supreme Court issued a grant, vacate, remand on, they’ve done a crummy job getting their laws right. Our friends over at the Gun Owners’ Action League pointed out recently a bigger mess they’ve made of the situation.

After a 2016 Supreme Court of the United (SCOTUS) decision in JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS the Massachusetts legislature was forced to repeal the complete ban on “electronic weapons”, namely stun guns and tasers. New regulations finally released.

The case started when the boyfriend of a woman, Jaime Caetano, beat her enough to land her in the hospital (July 10, 2013). After the incident she obtained a restraining order and a friend offered her a stun gun for self-defense. Soon after she was confronted by her boyfriend when leaving work. In what probably saved her life she brandished the stun gun and threatened to use it. It was enough to scare him away, but it only began Caetano’s legal problems.

As a result, Caetano was found guilty of criminal possession of a stun gun. The case ended up before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Mass SJC). That biased court defended the State law:

“This court concluded that a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for protection under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, where, although a stun gun is both dangerous per se and unusual, it was not in common use at the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment; and where the Legislature rationally could ban the use of stun guns in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare.”

Eventually the case went before SCOTUS and the conviction was vacated in what we now fondly refer to as the Mass SJC smackdown. In a rare unanimous decision, SCOTUS vacated the Mass SJC’s decision.

Subsequently the Massachusetts legislature passed legislation that repealed the outright ban on stun guns. Unfortunately, they made a complete mess of it because they would not listen to GOAL. The biggest part of the mess was they placed stun guns (stun guns and tasers) under the definition of “Firearm” which are handguns.

In their hubris, the legislators and rule makers of Massachusetts defined electric arms in an inappropriate manner. By trying to still keep the less-than-lethal arms under the taboo umbrella of handguns, the lawmakers created a situation that was very confusing. This fact about electric arms also gets pointed out by our friends at GOAL while they highlight a new definition within the Code of Massachusetts Regulations:

There is also the question of whether these items are legally considered lethal force. A handgun certainly is and since they are under the definition of a handgun, what does that mean? To further complicate that question, in the new regulations yet another definition magically appears:

“Electronic Control Weapon (ECW)/Conducted Energy Devices. A stun gun as defined in M.G.L. c. 140, § 121, or any portable device or weapon, regardless of whether it passes an electrical shock by means of a dart or projectile via a wire lead, from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam that is designed to incapacitate temporarily by causing neuromuscular incapacitation or pain so that an officer can regain and maintain control of the subject.”

This new definition adds more confusion to an already badly written law as it suggests that stun guns are considered less than lethal weapons that are only used to control an assailant. This new definition creates a dangerous legal trap for anyone who may be brought up on criminal charges in a self-defense incident much like what happened to Caetano. Once again, bad law made worse.

Between the existing section in Massachusetts General Law and now the new regulations in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, it could be difficult for Mr. & Mrs. Massachusetts to know what a stun gun or Taser would be classified as. Citizens should not have to seek a deep education on weapons law when they look to procure simple devices to use for self-defense. Looking closer at the regulation, electric arms are in fact being treated as if they’re firearms:

8.08: General Requirements for Civilian Use and Possession of Electronic Control Weapons

(1) Civilians are required to hold a validly issued license to carry firearms (LTC) pursuant to M.G.L. c. 140, § 131 before using or possessing an electronic control weapon.

(2) Prohibited persons, as defined in M.G.L. c. 140 § 131, shall not use or possess electronic control weapons.

(3) If not in the immediate control or possession of a lawful owner or other lawfully authorized user, electronic control weapons shall be secured in a locked container in accordance with M.G.L. c. 140, § 131L.

The Commonwealth set the stage to make the possession and use of electric arms as burdensome as it is to possess and own handguns. This means that someone who wishes to use a less-than-lethal option for self-defense, they have to jump through the same exact hoops that a potential gun owner must. Further, this means that people who are disqualified from firearm ownership in the commonwealth would also be disqualified from this very useful self-defense device.

While this could quickly get out of control if we dive into a treatise on criminal justice system reform, let’s completely ignore the non-violent – and violent for that matter – felons who wish to have such an option for self-defense. Instead, let’s turn our attention to all the other people who by statute would be disqualified from firearm ownership in Massachusetts:

 (iii) is or has been (A) committed to a hospital or institution for mental illness, alcohol or substance abuse, except a commitment pursuant to sections 35 or 36C of chapter 123, unless after 5 years from the date of the confinement, the applicant submits with the application an affidavit of a licensed physician or clinical psychologist attesting that such physician or psychologist is familiar with the applicant’s mental illness, alcohol or substance abuse and that in the physician’s or psychologist’s opinion, the applicant is not disabled by a mental illness, alcohol or substance abuse in a manner that shall prevent the applicant from possessing a firearm, rifle or shotgun; (B) committed by a court order to a hospital or institution for mental illness, unless the applicant was granted a petition for relief of the court order pursuant to said section 36C of said chapter 123 and submits a copy of the court order with the application; (C) subject to an order of the probate court appointing a guardian or conservator for a incapacitated person on the grounds that the applicant lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage the applicant’s affairs, unless the applicant was granted a petition for relief of the order of the probate court pursuant to section 56C of chapter 215 and submits a copy of the order of the probate court with the application; or (D) found to be a person with an alcohol use disorder or substance use disorder or both and committed pursuant to said section 35 of said chapter 123, unless the applicant was granted a petition for relief of the court order pursuant to said section 35 and submits a copy of the court order with the application;

(iv) is younger than 21 years of age at the time of the application;

(v) is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency;

The statutes in Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140 Section 131 (d); (iii), (iv), and (v) really do speak for themselves. Whatever the legislative intent was of the regulations governing electric weapons, the lawmakers have excluded incredibly vulnerable sections of the population from being able to possess and use such arms for self-defense. Persons who would traditionally be barred from firearm ownership are also barred from the effective – and less-lethal – electric arms.

Jamie Caetano, who was the lead plaintiff in the case that took down the prohibition in Massachusetts – of all places – of such arms, could have been considered part of a vulnerable population at the time of her incident. At the time of her procurement of the stun gun, she effectively did use for self-defense, she was homeless. Under Massachusetts’ current laws, Caetano would not necessarily be able to get a Massachusetts License to Carry under the circumstances she found herself in at that time. The commonwealth does not give someone that has an urgent necessity the ability to quickly get an effective self-defense item to protect themselves or their family.

In a post Caetano commonwealth, Jamie Caetano would be afoul of the law under the new regulations. This seems to go grossly against the intent of the opinion that accompanied the grant, vacate, remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

What the heck is wrong with having an adult, the age of 18 or over, just be able to buy and bear an electric arm by simply showing their drivers license?

The only upside here is that people that find firearms to be abhorrent, see the necessity of self-defense devices, who look into getting an electric arm, will have to go through the process. This will show the everyday citizen, possibly a deep blue progressive, how crazy the application process is to get a License to Carry. It will force someone that does not necessarily want anything to do with firearms to take a firearm safety class. Forcing someone to take a gun safety class, in of itself, could lead to litigation for those who morally object to having anything to do with guns. Finally, it’ll inflate the number of License to Carry holders in the state.

We can’t expect Massachusetts or other pinko strongholds to just do the “right thing” when it comes to civil liberties. The elite ruling class knows all too well what kind of tea parties unruly citizens like to have, and the commonwealth knows that they can’t have complete control over the subjects of Massachusetts if they’re armed. Gun Owners’ Action League is luckily there to fight for the Massachusetts gun owner, and in this case, electric arms owner. This has been a mess since 2016. It’s doubtful they’ll straighten out the new problems they’ve created within another 7 years. It will be interesting though, that we can guarantee.

Massachusetts panel on suicide shows major problems

by Leave a Comment

No one is ever going to mistake Massachusetts for a pro-gun state. It’s simply not likely to happen in our lifetime.

But one issue that impacts both pro-gun and anti-gun states is suicide. It’s a profound issue that we all need to rally together to address.

However, in Massachusetts, it seems they’re holding panels and folks are upset that pro-gun folks don’t like an anti-gun approach.

 Introducing a panel discussion on guns and suicide at Cape Cod Community College last Thursday, state Rep. Michael Day of Stoneham said that Massachusetts gun laws have been effective but are “obviously far from perfect.” The event was the first stop on a statewide “listening tour” Day has organized as part of a review of those laws.

Suicides account for 57 percent of all firearm deaths in Massachusetts, and 20 percent of suicides in the state are by firearm, according to the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a national nonprofit research project.

The state’s rate of suicide by firearm is among the lowest in the nation, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nationwide, firearms account for more than half of all suicide deaths.

Day declined to speculate on what specific changes in the law he was contemplating. But he told the Independent that “the mental health aspect is one of places that the Commonwealth needs to improve.” That is why he saw the subject as the right starting point for the tour, he said.

Now, why are we talking about gun laws when firearms account for just 20 percent of suicides in the state?

While 20 percent is a significant chunk of the total, it’s still pretty damn clear that guns aren’t the problem. If 80 percent of suicides are committed via other means, it seems obvious that the answer lies elsewhere.

I’m glad to see that Day acknowledges that the mental health aspect needs to be improved, but it still baffles me that he would argue that gun laws need to be changed as well when firearms are only used in a smaller percentage of total suicides.

In fact, it sure looks like successful mental health efforts would do wonders for the issue of suicide in the state.

Then we have this bit that really bothered me.

Barnstable Police Chief Matthew Sonnabend, one of the event’s four panelists, said there can be a disconnect between gun licensing authorities and the state Dept. of Mental Health.

During background checks, it is easy for an applicant’s mental health history to slip through the cracks, Sonnabend said. “If information doesn’t get reported, or if the person got treatment outside of their auspices, they wouldn’t know about it,” he said of the Dept. of Mental Health.

Yes, let’s continue to stigmatize mental health, barring people who seek help for their problems from buying guns. That’s a surefire way to encourage people to seek help when they need it.

So, someone who doesn’t want to lose his guns or his ability to buy them in the future might decide that there’s no upside to going and getting help. Or, at least, not enough of one to warrant the risk.

Look, there are people who are so disturbed that I get the inclination. But if you’re talking about suicides–and remember, they’re just 20 percent of the total in the state–then stripping gun rights from people who try to get help isn’t the best way to encourage people to seek help.

It’ll drive a lot of them to try to find their own way to deal, and since that usually doesn’t work all that well, it may actually cause more firearm suicides.

So yeah, this is a terrible idea on every level. For much better way of addressing the issue, check out Cam’s interview with the D.C. Project’s Kathleen Gilligan on today’s Cam & Co.