Federal District Court for Massachusetts
Challenge to firearms license restrictions that prohibit the possession, carrying, or use of firearms for personal protection
Filed February 2, 2015
Batty v. Albertelli challenges the wide-spread practice of restricting the lawful possession, use, and carrying of firearms in such a way as to deny plaintiffs the ability to use or carry a firearm for personal protection.
Possession of a firearm in Massachusetts is unlawful unless one holds a firearms license issued by to the police chief in the town in which they live. In issuing firearms licenses, each of the state's 351 police chiefs are authorized to impose restrictions relative the the use, possession, or carrying of firearms by the license holder. By restricting the plaintiffs' use, possession, and carrying of firearms to purposes such as "sporting", "target", or "hunting" the defendants' have denied plaintiffs the ability to possess a firearm for self-defense, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment ot the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory ruling that the Massachusetts statute and the practice of the defendants is unconstitutional as it denies otherwise qualified citizens the ability possess or carry an operable firearm for the purpose of personal protection. Comm2A and the individual plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David Jensen and Patrick M. Groulx. The towns sued in this case are Lowell, New Bedford and Winchester.
NB: Batty et al v. Albertelli et al is a continuation of Davis v. Grimes and much of that cases' procedural and case history is applicable to this case.
2/24/2017 - District Court Loss: Opinion
In short, the policy that requires applicants to show a specific reason to fear in order to be issued unrestricted firearm licenses, and its authorizing statute, are constitutional.
Accordingly, the placing of target and hunting restrictions on the licenses of applicants who do not show good reason to fear injury is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment.
- 03/11/2015 -- Amended Complaint
- 04/27/2015 -- Defendant Winchester's Answer
- 05/04/2015 -- Motion to Stay by Defendant Lowell
- 05/22/2015 -- Defendant New Bedford's Answer to Amended Complaint
- 05/26/2015 -- Plaintiff's Opposition to Lowell's Motion to Stay
- 07/01/2105 -- Order dismissing Weymouth Police Chief
- 09/17/2015 -- Hearing on Lowell's Motion to Stay
- 11/09/2015 -- Scheduling Hearing
- 02/09/2016 -- Status Conference
- 05/06/2016 -- Order dismissing case against Defendant Provencher (New Bedford)
- 07/07/2016 -- Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings by Defendant Albertelli (Winchester)
- 07/07/2016 -- Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Taylor (Lowell)
- 07/08/2016 -- Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement
- 08/02/2016 -- Defendant Albertelli's Opposition to Plaintiff's MSJ
- 08/02/2016 -- Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Albertelli's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings
- 08/02/2016 -- Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Taylor's MTD
- 08/09/2016 -- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of thier MSJ
- 08/29/2016 -- Motions Hearing
- 02/24/2017 -- Opinion