Prior to 2014, if a person wished to obtain a license to carry a handgun they would have
had to ask the local chief of police. If the chief said no, they had no recourse aside from
asking their local county sheriff which were notorious for issuing LTCs to their friends, cronies,
and campaign contributors. Licenses for shotguns and rifles were 'shall issue', barring
legal prohibitions identical to the Federal ones found on a Form 4473.
Now (in a judo move organized by gun owners that even you might admire),
all persons wishing to legally buy *any* gun must undergo fingerprinting,
pass a background check and get permission from the local chief of police.
The jokers in the deck for persons of your ilk come from three things:
1. A person denied a license that is not DQ'd according to Federal law can appeal that
denial, and the burden of proof is on the cops to show why the applicant shouldn't get
a license.
Several judges have already answered appeals by persons denied in the affirmative, and at least one such decision has cited the Heller decision in their own finding. So getting a gun license
is now de facto 'shall issue' in Massachusetts, and the most a control-happy top cop
can do is slow (but not stop) an otherwise-qualified applicant.
2. The General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (AKA 'the state legislature')
in its infinite wisdom made Class A licenses (AKA 'license to carry') subject to the very
same regulations, save for the addition of a test of legal knowledege and optional
range tests. The cost is the same as the less-restrictive FID (for rifles and shotguns)
Not being especially stupid, most firearm license applicants opted to get
Class A licenses, so now most firearm license holders are licensed to carry concealed handguns.
3. As a plus, the number of gun license holders in MA has increased over the last five years
at a rate that has far outstripped the rate of population growth-and most of them now can carry
concealed handguns.
Your attempt at turd-polishing, while valiant, was futile