FrugalFannie
NES Member
right. and it's a good thing. but it's stupid for them to hold "hearings" etc. The DOJ doesn't follow up on shit they "expose." We get more results from Judicial Watch.That's kind of by design...
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
right. and it's a good thing. but it's stupid for them to hold "hearings" etc. The DOJ doesn't follow up on shit they "expose." We get more results from Judicial Watch.That's kind of by design...
2 pages of completely worthless posts.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
Yes, they did not grant (nor deny) any of the 2A cases.Is this related to any SCOTUS statement today?
Stating that would have been helpful.Yes, they did not grant (nor deny) any of the 2A cases.
They will continue to kick the can until it cannot be found.
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!
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.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.
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.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?
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.
Punted again for another conference.