In response to “Mass. Gun Law Seen As Solid Compromise” from WAMC
This law is a complete sell-out and GOAL should be ashamed of themselves.
It’s axiomatic that since the 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental right, then absent a serious, statutory disqualifier, you are entitled to an unimpeded equal right to as much firearms access as any other non-criminal (adjudicated mental defectives excluded); and at minimum, modern handguns and rifles at your home.
But this new law makes random people subject to the loss of their FID card rights at the whim of a court – even if no crime, mental deficit or pre-specified transgression takes place. And not only that, but the hearing standard used is not high enough. Strict scrutiny ought to apply to any impediment to a fundamental right.
But most importantly, any law which does not clearly spell out how one can lose their rights is bad law and will not survive the first proper court challenge.
All persons are entitled to advance notice of the specifics of any law which, if enforced, burdens their fundamental rights. This law fails that test.
Under this law, because “suitability” is still not defined, even the most responsible citizen who diligently seeks to protect their gun ownership prerogative, does not have sufficient notice as to what specifically must be avoided to prevent loss of gun rights.
Such insufficient notice makes this law invalid on its face, in regards to the new ‘court challenge’ provisions aimed at FID cards.
Guest post from Dan Gregory, Director, Milford Good Government Association
In response to “Mass. Gun Law Seen As Solid Compromise” from WAMC
This law is a complete sell-out and GOAL should be ashamed of themselves.
It’s axiomatic that since the 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental right, then absent a serious, statutory disqualifier, you are entitled to an unimpeded equal right to as much firearms access as any other non-criminal (adjudicated mental defectives excluded); and at minimum, modern handguns and rifles at your home.
But this new law makes random people subject to the loss of their FID card rights at the whim of a court – even if no crime, mental deficit or pre-specified transgression takes place. And not only that, but the hearing standard used is not high enough. Strict scrutiny ought to apply to any impediment to a fundamental right.
But most importantly, any law which does not clearly spell out how one can lose their rights is bad law and will not survive the first proper court challenge.
All persons are entitled to advance notice of the specifics of any law which, if enforced, burdens their fundamental rights. This law fails that test.
Under this law, because “suitability” is still not defined, even the most responsible citizen who diligently seeks to protect their gun ownership prerogative, does not have sufficient notice as to what specifically must be avoided to prevent loss of gun rights.
Such insufficient notice makes this law invalid on its face, in regards to the new ‘court challenge’ provisions aimed at FID cards.
Guest post from Dan Gregory, Director, Milford Good Government Association