3 ms·

The 2014 act that the paper is referencing didn't really do that much to tighten gun laws in MA. It cleaned up some convoluted language, reorganized some of th

The 2014 act that the paper is referencing didn't really do that much to tighten gun laws in MA. It cleaned up some convoluted language, reorganized some of the law enforcement, changed licensing requirements to be simpler, added some mental health support for public schools, required firearm transactions to be recorded online instead of with paper forms, and made FIDs (the non-carry type of license) "may issue" instead of "shall issue". It was mostly a "clean up" bill, rather than a "tightening" bill. So I'm not sure anybody expected a clear inverse correlation with violent crime in the state.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>and made FIDs (the non-carry type of license) "may issue" instead of "shall issue". Looking at the current SCOTUS docket they're probably regretting that right about now.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  New York is holding all the regret in that case. They could have bailed early on but really thought they had it. It was too late when they offered the permit to the defendant. Now it goes to SCOTUS and while I wouldn’t make bets, it sure does seem like HI, CT, MA, CA are going to lose may-issue and will have to issue permits to legally able people according to thing about “bearing” those arms.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Historically SCOUTS waits for states to diverge in law (which they very much have here) and then smacks whosoever on the wrong side of history. Seems like 4/5ths of states are happy with some form of "own and carry what you want in private get a license to do it in public". I suspect any decision will require the outlier states to make significant movement toward that standard.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > re going to lose may-issue and will have to issue permits to legally able people according to thing about “bearing” those arms. Ultimately, if these states don't like the second amendment they should just amend it.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>and made FIDs (the non-carry type of license) "may issue" instead of "shall issue". Looking at the current SCOTUS docket they're probably regretting that right about now.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
New York is holding all the regret in that case. They could have bailed early on but really thought they had it. It was too late when they offered the permit to the defendant. Now it goes to SCOTUS and while I wouldn’t make bets, it sure does seem like HI, CT, MA, CA are going to lose may-issue and will have to issue permits to legally able people according to thing about “bearing” those arms.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Historically SCOUTS waits for states to diverge in law (which they very much have here) and then smacks whosoever on the wrong side of history. Seems like 4/5ths of states are happy with some form of "own and carry what you want in private get a license to do it in public". I suspect any decision will require the outlier states to make significant movement toward that standard.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > re going to lose may-issue and will have to issue permits to legally able people according to thing about “bearing” those arms. Ultimately, if these states don't like the second amendment they should just amend it.