Comm2A Challenges Prohibition Based on Non-Violent Misdemeanor Convictions

[Bonesinium]

Accordingly, I decline to consider Morin’s personal circumstances in deciding whethersection 131(d)(ii)(D) is unconstitutional as applied to him. It would be unreasonable to expect thecourts to make individualized considerations for every person who is statutorily precluded fromobtaining a firearms license but who nevertheless believes that he or she should be entitled to carrya weapon.

How convenient.

 

[terraformer]

And here is our answer to the ruling...
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/morin_motion_to_amend.pdf

 

[Len-2A Training]

And here is our answer to the ruling...
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/morin_motion_to_amend.pdf

One error in the document . . . it states Ch. 180 of the Acts of 1988 (instead of 1998) on page 3.

I like the "One Eyed Jack" reference to the fortune teller's license in the brief!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Accordingly, I decline to consider Morin’s personal circumstances in deciding whether section 131(d)(ii)(D) is unconstitutional as applied to him. It would be unreasonable to expect the courts to make individualized considerations for every person who is statutorily precluded from obtaining a firearms license but who nevertheless believes that he or she should be entitled to carry a weapon.

The pleading is clear - the case is about the Heller/McDonald right to possess a handgun in the home, not carry a weapon.

The court twisted the argument in its reply so it could issue the "desired outcome" rather than issue a ruling based on sound legal logic. There is a lot of this going on in gun cases.

 

[soam]

It's amazing how much time, money, and energy has been spent by our side trying to (unsuccessfully!) convince the court that the law says what it says. Hopefully this new motion gets them to actually read the damn plain language of the laws and see that MA's hare-brained licensing scheme requires an LTC to possess a handgun.

 

[MachineHead]

And here is our answer to the ruling...
http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/morin_motion_to_amend.pdf

Section 185I

Fortune tellers; license

Section 185I. No person shall tell fortunes for money unless a license therefor has been issued by the local licensing authority. Said license shall be granted only to applicants who have resided continuously in the city or town in which the license is sought for at least twelve months immediately preceding the date of the application. No such license shall be transferred or assigned. Unless otherwise established in a town by town meeting action and in a city by city council action, and in a town with no town meeting by town council action, by adoption of appropriate by-laws and ordinances to set such fees, the fee for each license granted under this section shall be two dollars, but in no event shall any such fee be greater than fifty dollars. Whoever tells fortunes for money unless licensed under this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.


https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section185I

Priceless!

 

[Friday]

Well, how far up the pole do you think this one will go?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

On Thursday the two defendants (Northborough Chief Leahy and the Commonwealth) filed their respective oppositions to Dr. Morin's Motion to alter or amend. Yesterday the court denied Dr. Morin's motion.

Updated here.

 

[Palladin]

not good

 

[jar]

Ugh.

Aren't the legal qualifications the same for an FID? Even if it actually allowed home possession (how you're supposed to acquire the firearm is yet another question) doesn't the same law bar Morin from being issued one? Massachusetts has weaseled out of so many challenges with procedural BS, and the courts are happy to let them.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Notice of Appeal was filed today.

 

[terraformer]

Ugh.

Aren't the legal qualifications the same for an FID? Even if it actually allowed home possession (how you're supposed to acquire the firearm is yet another question) doesn't the same law bar Morin from being issued one? Massachusetts has weaseled out of so many challenges with procedural BS, and the courts are happy to let them.

Here is the thing, possession of a handgun is verboten on an FID, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yesterday the opening brief of our appeal was filed in the First Circuit.

For background see Morin v. Leahy

Key issues presented in the appeal:

• Is the Class A License to Carry a Firearm the least comprehensive license available in Massachusetts that allows its holder to purchase a handgun and
  keep it in his home for self-defense?
• Can one legally possess a handgun in the home with only an FID card in Massachusetts?

 

[JAD]

Ugh.

Aren't the legal qualifications the same for an FID? Even if it actually allowed home possession (how you're supposed to acquire the firearm is yet another question) doesn't the same law bar Morin from being issued one? Massachusetts has weaseled out of so many challenges with procedural BS, and the courts are happy to let them.

Certain disqualifying conditions are forever on an FID (e.g. felony, domestic violence, crime of violence, drug trafficking) whereas the rest are subject to 5 year prohibition.

see this thread: https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-shall-issue?p=5262770&viewfull=1#post5262770

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Yesterday the opening brief of our appeal was filed in the First Circuit.

For background see Morin v. Leahy

Key issues presented in the appeal:

• Is the Class A License to Carry a Firearm the least comprehensive license available in Massachusetts that allows its holder to purchase a handgun and
  keep it in his home for self-defense?
• Can one legally possess a handgun in the home with only an FID card in Massachusetts?

I'll be the a-hole. The US constitution says the people can. the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. Too bad it's not that easy,
too bad the courts pervert the meaning and the right.

Both LTC and FID require the same app, same checks etc.. So.. yes.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'll be the a-hole. The US constitution says the people can. the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. Too bad it's not that easy,
too bad the courts pervert the meaning and the right.

Both LTC and FID require the same app, same checks etc.. So.. yes.

The AG took our case, reframed it the way they wanted it to be understood and the court liked their version of our case. The merits of this case were never reached. We said the case was about 'X', the AG said it was really about 'Y' and the court decided ruled against use because we didn't make a compelling case for 'Y'. Sure, we didn't make our case for 'Y', because our case was about 'X'.

Here's the issue: The AG contends that there is no right to an LTC because the LTC allows someone to carry a loaded, concealed firearm in public which is outside the scope of Heller. The only Second Amendment right anyone has is the right to keep a handgun in his home - according to the AG. That's something he could do if he had applied for and received an FID, according to the AG.. But because he didn't do that (i.e. exhaust all his other remedies), he doesn't have standing to bring this case. You can't bring a lawsuit of this type until you've exhausted all of your administrative remedies.

In coming to this conclusion the AG materially mislead the court and the court was willfully ignorant of a number of things including 1) Morin is statutorily barred from qualifying for even an FID, and 2) by statute, the FID does not allow one to possess a handgun:

(6) A firearm identification card shall not entitle a holder thereof to possess: (i) a large capacity firearm or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a Class A license issued to a shooting club as provided under section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a Class A license issued to an individual under section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range;

This case is about Morin's ability to keep a handgun in his home for personal protection. What the district court allowed the AG to do was to play the 'license shell game' - i.e. "the court might not have to review this case if the plaintiff had just applied for the right combination of licenses".

 

[JAD]

In coming to this conclusion the AG materially mislead the court and the court was willfully ignorant of a number of things including 1) Morin is statutorily barred from qualifying for even an FID, and 2) by statute, the FID does not allow one to possess a handgun:

I agree with you that an FID card is not an avenue by which an individual can possess a firearm (handgun) within his or her home for any lawful purpose. However, I disagree with one key point that you make.

Specifically I disagree about Morin's staturoy ineligibility for an FID card under the current form of c. 140 s. 129B(1)(i)

(i) has ever, in a court of the commonwealth, been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child, or both as defined in section 52 of chapter 119, for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years ; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; (E) a violation of any law regulating the use, possession or sale of controlled substances, as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C, including, but not limited to, a violation under said chapter 94C; or (F) a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33); provided, however, that, except for the commission of a felony, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the applicant has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding such application, then the applicant's right or ability to possess a non-large capacity rifle or shotgun shall be deemed restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and that conviction or adjudication shall not disqualify the applicant for a firearm identification card;

The conviction in question occurred more than 5 years ago and was not on one of the topics explicitly excluded from the restoration of eligibility after 5 years (the lifetime prohibition applies to "a felony, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances")

To ensure that there is no confusion, paragraph 6 imposes the same restriction on the possession of non-large capacity firearms as well.

(6) A firearm identification card shall not entitle a holder thereof to possess: (i) a large capacity firearm or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a license issued to a shooting club as provided under section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a license issued to an individual under said section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range; or (ii) a non-large capacity firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or large capacity feeding device therefor, except under a license issued to a shooting club as provided under said section 131 or under the direct supervision of a holder of a license issued to an individual under said section 131 at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range. A firearm identification card shall not entitle a holder thereof to possess any rifle or shotgun that is, or in such manner that is, otherwise prohibited by law. A firearm identification card issued pursuant to subclause (vi) of clause (1) of section 122D, shall be valid to purchase and possess chemical mace, pepper spray or other similarly propelled liquid, gas or powder designed to temporarily incapacitate. Except as otherwise provided herein, a firearm identification card shall not be valid for the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental or transportation of a rifle or shotgun if such rifle or shotgun is a large capacity weapon as defined in section 121.

 

[terraformer]

I agree with you that an FID card is not an avenue by which an individual can possess a firearm (handgun) within his or her home for any lawful purpose. However, I disagree with one key point that you make.

Specifically I disagree about Morin's staturoy ineligibility for an FID card under the current form of c. 140 s. 129B(1)(i)



The conviction in question occurred more than 5 years ago and was not on one of the topics explicitly excluded from the restoration of eligibility after 5 years (the lifetime prohibition applies to "a felony, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances")

To ensure that there is no confusion, paragraph 6 imposes the same restriction on the possession of non-large capacity firearms as well.

(1)(i) isn't controlling, (1)(ii) is. His conviction was outside MA. No restoration of rights in DC was made as no loss of rights in DC occurred. Also, note the restoration in (1)(i) only applies to rifles and shotguns and (6) applies only to possession on the grounds of a Class A gun club, which is a unicorn in MA.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today the Appellees - Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Chief Mark Leahy or Northborough - filed their briefs with the First Circuit. Links can be found on Comm2A's Morin page.

No hearing date has been set and a panel has not been announced.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

We filed a reply today. Still no hearing date or panel. See the last item on the Morin page. Hopefully the court will finally understand that there's no LTC/B and you can buy or possess a handgun with an FID.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

This is ****ing madness. GOOD LORD, what a mess. It's not this hard, but yet we have government officials who always step on the constitution. etc... makes me sick !

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Oral arguments before a three judge panel of the First Circuit have been scheduled for the first week of April. Morin v. Leahy

 

[Coyote33]

Can the public attend? Can it be televised?

 

[Garys]

Anyone can attend. Proceedings in federal court are not televised, nor are even still cameras allowed. The last time I had federal jury duty, we were told to leave our cell phones in our cars or at home because we wouldn't get into the building.

That's why they have all those drawings on TV when they talk about federal cases.

Can the public attend? Can it be televised?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Practices vary from court to court. The First Circuit typically posts oral argument recordings on their website, often the same day. The Ninth Circuit live-streams oral arguments.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Oral arguments before a three judge panel of the First Circuit have been scheduled for the first week of April. Morin v. Leahy

Thank You for the fighting the good fight. Please kick these son of bitches in the baby maker.

 

[jar]

Anyone can attend. Proceedings in federal court are not televised, nor are even still cameras allowed. The last time I had federal jury duty, we were told to leave our cell phones in our cars or at home because we wouldn't get into the building.

That's why they have all those drawings on TV when they talk about federal cases.

I always leave my cell behind. They'll check them at the door, but willingly handing my cell phone to federal LE isn't on my to do list.

 

[Coyote33]

This Tuesday:

05/02/2017 -- Oral Arguments scheduled

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Oral arguments before a three judge panel of the First Circuit have been scheduled for the first week of April. Morin v. Leahy

Bump. Think happy thoughts everyone. We only get 10 minutes to make our case in front of the court. We might just have one sympathetic ear on this panel so we'll need all the good vibes you can spare. Audio should be up in a couple of days and we'll post a link in this thread.

I always leave my cell behind. They'll check them at the door, but willingly handing my cell phone to federal LE isn't on my to do list.

I don't like to check mine either*, (some federal courts don't even allow that). But that also means I have to drive since my alternative would be Uber and I can't call Uber without my phone.

*Ironically, I can't check my phone at my neighborhood state district court, but I can check my gun.

 

[CAR]

Go get 'em, and thank you for all you do!