In a significant but underreported legal victory, a challenge to Massachusetts’ stringent gun permitting laws has concluded with a settlement favoring gun rights advocates.
The case, Morin v. Lyver, marked a pivotal moment for Second Amendment supporters as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts conceded, allowing the plaintiff, Mr. Morin, to obtain the necessary license to purchase and carry a firearm – a license he arguably should not have needed in the first place.
Gun Law Attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law discussed this in his latest video.
The Background: A Protracted Battle
The case began in 2008 when Mr. Morin, a long-time gun owner and carrier, was denied the renewal of his Massachusetts carry license due to two misdemeanor convictions in Washington, D.C. The convictions were for possessing an unregistered firearm and carrying a firearm without the appropriate permit—charges that stemmed from an incident where Morin voluntarily disclosed his firearm to a security guard at the Museum of Natural History.
When Morin applied to renew his Massachusetts carry license, the state denied his application, citing his convictions in D.C. This denial prompted Morin to file a lawsuit against the Commonwealth, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s permitting laws.
The Legal Journey
The initial stages of the lawsuit did not favor Morin. In a ruling that dismissed his suit, the trial court argued that Massachusetts’ permitting laws were substantially related to the state’s interest in preventing crime and promoting public safety. This decision was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This landmark ruling significantly altered the way courts evaluate Second Amendment cases, emphasizing that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention
In the wake of the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court granted review of Morin’s case, vacated the lower court’s ruling, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the new legal standard. This move signaled a potential turning point in the legal battle over Massachusetts’ gun permitting laws.
The Settlement: A Quiet Victory
Rather than prolong the legal battle, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts opted for a settlement. The settlement effectively acknowledged that the state’s permitting laws, as applied to Morin, could not withstand constitutional scrutiny under the Bruen framework. As part of the settlement, the state agreed to issue Morin the necessary permit to purchase and carry a firearm.
This resolution marks a significant victory for Morin and Second Amendment advocates. It demonstrates the potential for challenging and overturning restrictive gun laws that infringe upon constitutional rights.
Broader Implications
The Morin v. Lyver case sets a precedent that could impact similar laws across the United States. Permit-to-purchase laws, which require individuals to obtain government approval before exercising their right to own a firearm, are facing increased scrutiny. The settlement in this case underscores the growing judicial recognition that such laws may violate the Second Amendment.
Attorney William Kirk’s Perspective
William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law highlighted the importance of this victory in his video. Kirk explained that the settlement is a “death nail” for permit-to-purchase laws, which he considers one of the most egregious violations of individual rights. He emphasized that requiring a permit to purchase a firearm is akin to demanding a hall pass from the government to exercise an inalienable right.
The Future of Gun Rights Litigation
While the Morin case represents a significant win, the battle over gun rights is far from over. Similar challenges are unfolding in states like Maryland and Oregon, where restrictive gun laws are being contested in court. The momentum from this victory could fuel further legal challenges and shape the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Miscarriage of Justice
People in the comments shared their opinions: “So this guy lost a fundamental right for 16 years and got no restitution from the state when they realized that they were wrong? What a terrible miscarriage of justice.”
One commenter concluded: “What happened to this man is so sick. He’s not a criminal. These people are really cowards. Arresting law abiding citizens while they stay away from armed criminals.”
A Landmark Victory
The resolution of Morin v. Lyver is a landmark victory for gun rights advocates, highlighting the evolving judicial approach to Second Amendment cases. As courts continue to apply the principles established in Bruen, the future of restrictive gun laws appears increasingly uncertain. This quiet yet monumental victory reinforces the importance of vigilance and advocacy in the ongoing fight to protect constitutional rights.
Influence on Future 2A Litigation
What are your thoughts? What are the broader implications of the Morin v. Lyver settlement for gun rights across the United States? How might the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen influence future Second Amendment litigation? What steps can gun rights advocates take to challenge restrictive permit-to-purchase laws in other states?
See the full video on Washington Gun Law’s YouTube channel for more details here.
