Even if you want to just keep a handgun (and most semi-automatic firearms) in your home in Massachusetts, you're required to have a License to Carry. Though the license is supposedly "shall issue," the law also gives police broad power to suspend those licenses and strip residents of their right to keep and bear arms.
Two recent cases demonstrate just how abusive this power can be, and the lengths that some police departments will go through in order to disarm legal gun owners.
In one case, a gentleman identified by the Gun Owners Action League as "Mr. Novia" had his license suspended after calling 911 because he was concerned about a possible break-in at his home.
Believing that someone might be in his house, Novia retrieved a shotgun from his gun safe and dialed 911. When police arrived, Novia left his home unarmed to speak with officers.
During the interaction with the police, they asked if he had been drinking. He admitted to having a few after work but was not intoxicated. The police administered a portable breath test (such tests are not admissible in court because of their overt unreliability) the results of which were apparently inconclusive. He was not charged criminally. Despite no evidence of reckless handling, public intoxication while armed, or criminal misuse, Novia’s firearm license was suspended.
“This abuse of the “suitability” clause creates very dangerous territory for lawful gun owners defending themselves in their own home,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “Imagine you are having a poolside family BBQ and have had a few beers during the day but are not intoxicated. Suddenly chaos breaks out as intruders attack the event and you must make the choice of defending your loved ones or letting the violence happen. All because you had a beer with your burger.”
No criminal charges, but no gun license for Mr. Novia either.
The second case that GOAL recently highlighted is perhaps even more egregious. In that incident, police suspended the license of a victim of domestic violence.
Mr. Morissette’s LTC was suspended after an altercation in which authorities identified him as the victim. According to the Sturbridge police officer, Jacqueline Morissette admitted to striking her husband first. Gregory reported responding in self-defense. The criminal complaint charged Jacqueline with assault and battery on a family or household member, and named Gregory as the victim. Police advised Gregory of his right to seek a restraining order.
No firearm was involved in the incident. Nevertheless, Worcester police suspended HIS firearms license, and Worcester District Court affirmed that decision.
Worcester police labeled Gregory Morrisette a public safety threat, even though it was his wife who was criminally charged and he was the victim.
Under Chapter 135, a police chief can issue the suspension of a License to Carry based on their subjective belief of "suitability," requiring the gun owner to turn over all firearms covered under the LTC within seven days. . . or immediately in the case of those deemed by the chief to be a public safety threat, like Morrisette.
The gun owner has 90 days to appeal that decision, and a suitability hearing takes place where a judge is supposed to decide whether the suspension was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because Chapter 135 gives police chiefs an unbelievable amount of leeway, people like Morrisette and Novia are being stripped of their Second Amendment rights based on little more than the chief's say-so.
“This case is about more than one person’s firearms license,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “It asks whether Massachusetts may strip a law-abiding citizen of his Second Amendment rights for defending himself during an assault - even when the Commonwealth identified him as the victim. Will this be the State’s practice moving forward to disarm victims of domestic violence?”
The case, like so many others in the Commonwealth, presents constitutional and due-process questions. May a licensing authority label an uncharged crime victim a public-safety risk despite the investigation’s outcome? Can lawful self-defense become evidence of firearms “unsuitability”? May officials substitute an unsupported assessment for the facts?
The answers could affect Massachusetts lawful gun owners. If defending oneself, even without a firearm, can this trigger the loss of Second Amendment rights? This leaves every lawful gun owner with a unconscionable decision that should never have to be made.
I'm glad to see GOAL supporting these gun owners, and I hope that they'll be able to bring these cases to the DOJ's attention as well. The Civil Rights Division has filed a number of "pattern and practices" lawsuits, and it seems to me that Chapter 135 is allowing patterns and practices that are violating the fundamental rights of Massachusetts residents on a regular basis.
If Novia was so soused that he posed a danger to himself or others, police could have charged him with a crime. If there was evidence that Morrisette was the initial aggressor and not the victim of domestic violence, he could be facing criminal charges as well. But an allegation of criminal behavior or intent isn't even necessary to strip someone of their right to possess a firearm in their home in Massachusetts, and I don't know how that can be reconciled with the Supreme Court's previous Second Amendment decisions.
