Important information that law enforcement, firearm dealers and civilian gun owners should know about the new Massachusetts gun regulations. As I predicted two months ago in our June 14th BLOG titled, “D-Day July 31st For New Massachusetts Gun Law Bill,” extensive gun law changes were signed into law by Governor Patrick on August 13, 2014. As is the case with all of the MGLs, sorting through legal revisions, reframing and expansions of language is a daunting task. Therefore, I am committed to bringing you important facts and observations in a plain language 3-part series.
PART I
The Good (My working definition of good is – “It could have been worse.”)
- LTC denials and restrictions can be appealed in district court. This is one of the most progressive provisions I’ve seen in over a decade. Never in the history of the Commonwealth has there been a statutory provision for LTC applicants to challenge a license restriction in the district court. This can serve as a useful vehicle for establishing case law and precedence that could result in a higher rate of city-to-city consistency relative to arbitrarily imposed LTC restrictions on lawful citizens.
- FIDs remain “SHALL ISSUE.” Applications will be accepted at age 14. FID denials, refusal to renew, suspension or revocation must be put in writing to the applicant in conjunction with a district court petition filed by the Licensing Authority (LA). The burden of proof is placed on the LA to substantiate his petition.
- FID/LTC renewal and first time applicants must be provided with a receipt by the LA. For renewal applicants, the receipt serves as your indefinite All Lawful Purpose identification as a valid firearm licensee until issued your new FID/LTC or you receive a written denial. All Lawful Purposes infers the ability to purchase firearms and ammunition permitted under your LTC/FID. The former 90-day grace period that has caused so many problems due to lengthy processing time has been eliminated.
The Bad
- LTCs remain MAY ISSUE with LA discretion to impose restrictions and apply an undefined standard of suitability. An applicant can appeal a LAs decision in district court within 90-days of the restriction or denial.
- Self-Defense Sprays – there is no system to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing mace and pepper spray. The new law doesn’t require any level of background check, just an ID to establish age or if under 18 you need an FID. I agree that we need to make self-defense sprays more easily accessible to lawful citizens without the lengthy process of obtaining an FID. However, legislators just swung the pendulum fully in the opposite direction and opened unbridled access of incapacitating chemical sprays to prohibited persons. One possible preventative measure may be a modified version of a NICS check at the retail counter, which would take under 3-minutes.
The Questionable
- On March 1st of even years (e.g. March 1, 2016), the EOPSS is required to collect, examine and report on statistics relative to firearm crimes including trafficking; the connection of confiscated firearms to crimes; source of firearms used in attempted or completed suicides; arrest and prosecution of firearm related offenses; for the purpose of evaluating whether Massachusetts gun regulation are effective in reducing crime. On the surface, this law could be extremely valuable to lawful gun owners in the Commonwealth. Why? Because it would document the broadly known fact that violent criminal behavior with unlawfully possessed guns IS NOT IMPACTED by piling new gun laws on the shoulders of law abiding citizens who comply with firearm safety training requirements, submit to extensive state and federal background checks and contribute to the overall health of their communities as productive citizens of the Commonwealth. What makes this new law questionable is that its implementation is “Subject To Appropriations.” Yes, this is a common phrase used in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. However, this is also a very commonly used excuse for either not implementing a law or poor performance. If the Commonwealth was ever challenged on why a report was not generated in accordance to the statutory timelines the response could be, the law was not funded. If a substandard report was challenged the response could be, the law is inadequately funded. I’m concerned about the state’s commitment to accountability to its citizens who deserve to know and see the facts.
You can find the full MGL Chapter 284 “An Act Relative To Reducing Gun Violence” here https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2014/Chapter284
Stay tuned for PART II
Visit Us magproinc.com
Like Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Twitter
Recent Comments