Donnell case was appealed by the state

I’ve never understood how full faith and credit doesn’t result in a finding that a person must be permitted to carry in any state if the person’s state of residency permits that person to possess and carry. It’s not reciprocity. It’s full faith and credit.
 
well usually District Court rulings don't create case law IIRC, but if this goes to a higher court, and the D.C.is upheld, then it creates case law and one that is a win for us.... but if "we" do get a W, you can bet it will be appealed yet again
 
MAGA99 said:
Why would this be appealed by mass? Can we get an internet lawyer level of explanation here?
Click to expand...
The judge in Lowell dismissed all of the pending gun charges against non residents so the DA office appealed. The case was taken by the Supreme Judicial Court rather than the Appeals Court which suggests they recognize it has wider importance and they also solicited amicus briefs which anti gun groups have begun filing.
 
nstassel said:
The judge in Lowell dismissed all of the pending gun charges against non residents so the DA office appealed. The case was taken by the Supreme Judicial Court rather than the Appeals Court which suggests they recognize it has wider importance and they also solicited amicus briefs which anti gun groups have begun filing.
Click to expand...
Ahh, now it makes sense!! Thank you!!
 
LittleCalm said:
I’ve never understood how full faith and credit doesn’t result in a finding that a person must be permitted to carry in any state if the person’s state of residency permits that person to possess and carry. It’s not reciprocity. It’s full faith and credit.
Click to expand...
It goes back to shitty states like MA who don't want to honor other states, hell they don't want to hand them out to residents. So states say, "if MA won't honor our residents, then we aren't going to honor theirs". Then it just goes round and round. Truely pathetic. But 'states rights' if you believe in gun control.
 
There are two questions asked:
Where the defendant made no attempt to comply with the Massachusetts firearm licensing scheme, such that he was not aggrieved or harmed by having been denied a license, does he lack standing to claim that the licensing scheme is unconstitutional as applied to him, and, therefore, did the motion judge lack jurisdiction to consider his as-applied constitutional challenges?
Click to expand...
When taking a layman's view this is an easy question to answer.
One should not be required to attempt to comply with an unconstitutional law in order to gain standing to challenge said law - Did a person need to pay a poll tax or fail a literacy test to gain standing to challenge voting restrictions? No, and the same should apply to the right to bear arms.
Are the defendant’s claims that Massachusetts licensing laws violate his rights to keep and bear arms, interstate travel, and equal protection without merit, where the defendant has failed to meet his burden to show that G.L.c. 269, §10(a) and the statutory scheme regulating firearm possession in Massachusetts are unconstitutional in all circumstances?
Click to expand...
Why are we asking about a facial challenge when the issue is an as-applied question? Oh, because the Mass Marsupial Courts are well known for creating a strawman, examining that strawman and then using that false reasoning to rule against the original, unrelated cause.

Hopefully, when the SJC rules against this it is so crazy that SCOTUS picks it up like Caetano (Since the 2nd is an enumerated right, any negative outcome will be used to crush other rights here in Mass)
 
@nstassel - My thought is this is going to go the same way as Miller since there is no one arguing on the side of 2A rights. The lack of standing argument presented by the state is BS but will create seriously bad case law if the SJC is allowed to go forward with a one sided case. Any person charged with breaking a law should have automatic standing regardless of whether they attempted to comply through other methods.

So who argues this case from Donnell's side?
I assume his legal team, public defenders, is who would fight this. If that is true then it is an easy win for the state unless an outside group funds a real defense.
 
pastera said:
@nstassel - My thought is this is going to go the same way as Miller since there is no one arguing on the side of 2A rights. The lack of standing argument presented by the state is BS but will create seriously bad case law if the SJC is allowed to go forward with a one sided case. Any person charged with breaking a law should have automatic standing regardless of whether they attempted to comply through other methods.

So who argues this case from Donnell's side?
I assume his legal team, public defenders, is who would fight this. If that is true then it is an easy win for the state unless an outside group funds a real defense.
Click to expand...
I hear you, but then Caetano was won by a public defender. Still, if the opportunity arises to help fund the case, we should all do what we can.
 
Mesatchornug said:
I hear you, but then Caetano was won by a public defender. Still, if the opportunity arises to help fund the case, we should all do what we can.
Click to expand...
True - if the SJC opinion is written like Caetano then that would be a second unicorn fart gift.

Caetano was an almost perfect case given the circumstances and the state erred believing her being a homeless stripper would hurt her case immensely - and they seriously F'd up on that one by not looking at the serious levels of physical abuse she endured from her attacker gaining her a ton of compassion from both liberals and conservatives on the court

This guy being a drunk driver doesn't drive compassion for his case in a positive way so I don't expect to get the support of the liberals at SCOTUS.
 
MAGA99 said:
Why would this be appealed by mass? Can we get an internet lawyer level of explanation here?
Click to expand...

Here's the part I don't get - you get your case tossed by a judge. . . . and somehow the STATE can appeal it???? I'm pretty sure McCoy could never get a lower court's dismissal reversed. It isn't a precedent, but F them is what it comes down to, I thought. Clearly, I'm wrong. LOL
 
nstassel said:
The judge in Lowell dismissed all of the pending gun charges against non residents so the DA office appealed. The case was taken by the Supreme Judicial Court rather than the Appeals Court which suggests they recognize it has wider importance and they also solicited amicus briefs which anti gun groups have begun filing.
Click to expand...
Sua Sponte is legalese for "The court plans to make law, and does not wish to risk the inconvenience of justifying overriding a well written lower court decision".

Back in 1976 when the handgun ban referendum was pending, the MA SJC grabbed a case so it could establish that handgun ownership was not a right and have the decision in place before the referendum vote (it lost).
 
Palladin said:
on 495 just before the lowell connector. well into MA
Click to expand...
Didn't realize it was that far south. For some reason I thought it was near pheasant lane mall.
Still...very different that saying he was arrested in Worcester or Springfield. At one time, I worked in Chelmsford near that part of 495 (495xRT3-Connector). I would run to Nashua for lunch...the line can't be more than 10-12 minutes up RT3. 35 years ago used to love visiting former inlaws in that area cause could still get beer on Sundays when the state was in that stage of letting stores within a certain distance of state line sell beer and wine.
 
Palladin said:
what happened to FOPA, as this guy was travelling thru Mass???
Click to expand...
FOPA should NEVER be needed. WHY, because it's in the bill of rights !!

Second Amendment Right to Bear ArmsA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
FOPA should NEVER be needed. WHY, because it's in the bill of rights !!

Second Amendment Right to Bear ArmsA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
True, but the 2A is a right of the second class and not afforded the same protection as the others.
 
@Admin Is there a way to allow both NH and MA to comment on this post. This case impacts NH citizens. If we fix that issue, the case might help MA residents.
 
design said:
@Admin Is there a way to allow both NH and MA to comment on this post. This case impacts NH citizens. If we fix that issue, the case might help MA residents.
Click to expand...
I'm from NH currently in FL for the next 2 weeks and I can comment...... there are no geographic restrictions on commenting on this form
 
appraiser said:
I'm from NH currently in FL for the next 2 weeks and I can comment...... there are no geographic restrictions on commenting on this form
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure that NH citizens are aware of this case as it is critical to them!
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
891
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
eFA-10 For Shotgun Purchased Out of State, What Do I Put In The Dealer Info Area?
Replies
3
Views
191
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
I was very surpised to see mass.gov admits this…
Replies
10
Views
602
greencobra
greencobra
"...possess prior to 9/13/14" Line in the Law
Replies
1
Views
178
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Gun reform bill opposed by police chiefs passed by state House
Replies
7
Views
601
oldyankee
oldyankee
Back
Top Bottom