The head of the state’s chiefs of police association said a proposal to bring Massachusetts’ license to carry laws into compliance with a recent Supreme Court ruling “makes sense” and still allows chiefs to reasonably regulate licenses in their communities.
Changes to the state’s license to carry law were included in a wide-ranging judiciary infrastructure technology borrowing bill the Legislature sent Gov. Charlie Baker Monday morning after a 23-hour-plus marathon end to formal sessions for the year. It was a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case that struck down a New York law requiring residents to show proper cause to have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.
The decision was expected to have legal ramifications in Massachusetts, where a similar “good reason” provision existed in the license to carry statute. Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association President Chief Michael Bradley said the changes lawmakers approved earlier this week make sense.
“It’s in line with what the Supreme Court had decided on,” he said. “As a licensing authority, we have no issues with that, and I think we’re glad they made those changes to be in line with the Supreme Court case.”
State legislators tweaked several sections of state law as a result of Bruen, making changes they said would put the state in compliance with the decision “while preserving many of the protections that are currently in place,” as Senate Ways and Means Chair Michael Rodrigues put it Saturday.
The proposal removes language requiring a license to carry applicant to have “good reason to fear injury” to themselves, their property, “or for any other reason, including the carrying of firearms for use in sport or target practice only.”
A licensing authority could still deny an application if it determines a person is “unsuitable” based on “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant has “exhibited or engaged in behavior” that “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”
Bradley said most police chiefs in the state have relied on two other prongs of the state’s license to carry law to manage licenses in their areas — language around prohibited persons and suitability.
“I would say the majority of licensing authorities, or chiefs, really do not use the good reason standard that’s in there and have not been putting restrictions on licenses,” the Upton Police chief said in an interview. “There were still some pockets, I think, in the state, mainly some of the larger cities, that continued to use restrictions on licenses, and that’s really where the Bruen decision affected Massachusetts.”
Springfield, for years, placed restrictions or conditions on licenses, required additional training, and in some cases, rejected licenses if there was not a good enough reason for seeking one. That practice was suddenly unconstitutional after the Bruen decision came down.
State lawmakers are also proposing to require a person seeking an initial license to participate in a “personal interview” with police and prohibiting a person from getting a license if they have a permanent or temporary harassment prevention order against them.
At the last minute, legislators decided to scrap House-backed language that would have cut down the duration of licenses to carry from six to three years. Mike Harris, director of public policy at Gun Owners Action League, said the cost of a license would have doubled if the span of a license was reduced.
“That’s prohibitive to some people,” he said. “Putting up more and more barriers to people who want to exercise their civil rights and be able to protect themselves is not okay.”
In a letter sent to lawmakers on Sunday, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association Executive Director Mark Leahy argued the end of formal sessions was not the time to pass broad reforms to the state’s gun laws outside of necessary responses to the Bruen decision.
“Our laws are some of the strongest in the country, and while we encourage regular review of these laws, we do not believe quick passage of new interview requirements or license term changes are necessary,” Leahy wrote. “Our current suitability standard allows Chiefs to regularly review any license issued.”
Rep. Michael Day, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said the law before Baker brings the state into compliance with and “tighten[s] up what had been loosened by” the Bruen decision.
“And again, as I said, with the promise of much more to come,” he told reporters early Monday morning.
______
©2022 Advance Local Media LLC.
Visit masslive.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
