Gould v. Morgan
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
907 F.3d 659 (2018)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Massachusetts law prohibited carrying a firearm in public without a license. Under the state licensing statute, local licensing authorities could issue a license if an applicant had good reason to fear injury or for any other reason, including sport. The statute gave local authorities discretion to include restrictions in granted licenses. Two local licensing authorities (defendants), one in Boston and another in Brookline, adopted policies stating that an unrestricted license to carry a firearm in public would be granted only if an applicant identified a specific need for self-defense beyond a generalized desire to be safe. Absent a specific, identified need for self-defense, the authorities would issue only licenses with restrictions deemed appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Multiple license applicants (plaintiffs) who sought unrestricted licenses but received restricted licenses sued the Boston and Brookline licensing authorities and the state attorney general (defendant). The applicants argued that the Massachusetts licensing statute, as applied by the Boston and Brookline authorities, violated the applicants’ Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court disagreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the government parties. The applicants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Selya, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 906,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 996 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
