5/15/20 - Could be a big SCOTUS announcement

2 pages of completely worthless posts.


Well at least it is not cluttering up @Comm2A 's already existing thread dedicated to the SCOTUS docket.


🐯
 
Even a restraining order as part of a divorce decree in MA (208 order) screws you for life, until she drops dead or you get a modification.
Incorrect. During my separation at the start of my divorce I was subject to a 208. During that time I renewed my MA LTC, fully disclosing the 208, without any problem. Unlike the 209a, the 208 has no included prohibition on firearms possession (they would need to add that specifically), and while I'm not 100% sure on this, I believe technically the 208 is a "no contact order" not a "domestic violence" order. Regardless, the 208 by itself does not make you a PP.

Suitability is a whole other situation. One CoP will follow the law and another will decide that a 208 is a suitability issue.
 
Incorrect. During my separation at the start of my divorce I was subject to a 208. During that time I renewed my MA LTC, fully disclosing the 208, without any problem. Unlike the 209a, the 208 has no included prohibition on firearms possession (they would need to add that specifically), and while I'm not 100% sure on this, I believe technically the 208 is a "no contact order" not a "domestic violence" order. Regardless, the 208 by itself does not make you a PP.

Suitability is a whole other situation. One CoP will follow the law and another will decide that a 208 is a suitability issue.
Every divorce summons and complaint that I've been given to serve has standard boilerplate 208 restraining info in it. It prohibits conversion of property without court permission, etc. I asked my client (divorce attorney) about it wrt DV and she told me that judges don't like adding DV info to a 208 RO and instead suggest the use of the 209A in those cases. Nothing in MGL requires confiscation of LTC or guns/ammo on a 208 RO.
 
I stand corrected.

But IMHO if there is a 208 order in the decree, you can bet there was a 209A order in the process somewhere
 
I stand corrected.

But IMHO if there is a 208 order in the decree, you can bet there was a 209A order in the process somewhere
Certainly a possibility, but I think most of the time the 209a comes first, at the beginning, because.... the process for both is pretty much the same. Probably a temp ex parte order followed by a hearing. If there was DV and it wasn't brought up at that time, it's going to look bad to the judge dragging everyone back in, unless there was a specific incident. My situation was not typical, so this is not first hand info.

Sorry for the off-topic
 
For those of us in Massachusetts, Worman v. Healey is at the top of my list. No one would be happier than I to see the AG overturned on what I think was a flawed legal argument from the beginning!

If the SCOTUS smack down her reinterpretation of established law, I’d be happy. If they smack down AWBs prohibiting commonly used magazines and firearms, nothing would make me more happy even if it meant losing thousands of $ in value of my firearms. I’m not optimistic, but I am hopeful.
 
If the SCOTUS smack down her reinterpretation of established law, I’d be happy. If they smack down AWBs prohibiting commonly used magazines and firearms, nothing would make me more happy even if it meant losing thousands of $ in value of my firearms. I’m not optimistic, but I am hopeful.
Federal courts can't touch Healey's reinterpretation of state law, because state courts are the sole arbiter of their interpretation. Federal courts can only redress constitutional violations.

Look to the ongoing NSSF litigation on the Healeyban. There's a Suffolk Superior Court hearing on that tomorrow.
 
Federal courts can't touch Healey's reinterpretation of state law, because state courts are the sole arbiter of their interpretation. Federal courts can only redress constitutional violations.

Look to the ongoing NSSF litigation on the Healeyban. There's a Suffolk Superior Court hearing on that tomorrow.

But (and HYPOTHETICALLY) if NJ or NY has a similar “ban” and there‘s appeals that yield two different answers, then it’s up to SCOTUS to resolve disputes amongst the lower courts, right?
 
But (and HYPOTHETICALLY) if NJ or NY has a similar “ban” and there‘s appeals that yield two different answers, then it’s up to SCOTUS to resolve disputes amongst the lower courts, right?
Well, the Supreme Court can toss any law they want on the basis of the Constitution, with or without a circuit split. They just can't toss an interpretation or regulation on the basis of it being contrary to state law.
 
I think they're waiting until after the election. Anti-gunners' outrage over a significant pro-2A decision might serve to turn out Democratic voters, and/or sway those who are on the fence, thus tipping the election. Worst-case for the 2A, and for SCOTUS as an institution, the Dems win the White House and the Senate, and pack the court, as they've been threatening to do.

I happen to think that, regardless of your politics, packing the court because you didn't get the result you wanted threatens the integrity of the Court. You're essentially rendering it subordinate to the Legislative and Executive branches, when in fact they're supposed to be the final check on excesses by those two branches of government. They'd be completely thwarting the concept of judicial review, and for this and other reasons, even many liberals think court-packing is a bad idea.

If that is in fact what they're doing, then the court-packing threat has already compromised the Court's integrity by imposing a chilling effect on the Court's willingness to consider cases.
 
Federal courts can't touch Healey's reinterpretation of state law, because state courts are the sole arbiter of their interpretation. Federal courts can only redress constitutional violations.

Look to the ongoing NSSF litigation on the Healeyban. There's a Suffolk Superior Court hearing on that tomorrow.

What about 14A and MacDonald?
 
Back
Top Bottom