• 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.

9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,175
Likes
1,247
Ray,

The antis often point to higher murder rates in southern states compared with northern states with strict gun laws. The truth of the matter is that southerners are more violent overall. What they often fail to include in the discussion is the simple fact that in northern states with free gun laws, the murder rate is usually even lower.

Spend some time looking this over:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...n_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

You will see data showing what seems obvious. Places like NH and VT have less murder than MA or CT. But that places like Arkansas, MS, TN, AL,and KY have murder rates 2x what MA has, but also have 3 to 5x what NH and VT have.

Yup. It all amounts to no correlation between the level of gun control laws in a given state and violent crime rates.
 

dcmdon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   1
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
13,231
Likes
2,844
Location
Southeastern CT and Boston Metro West
The cause and effect here has nothing to do with gun laws. This is purely income-driven: crime rates in general are proportional to unemployment and poverty rates. Those states listed have high poverty rates, low education, high unemployment, low standard of living, etc. Compare Apples to Apples not AAPL to Google...

Exactly. That was my point.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone who replied actually read my post.

Put on your big boy hats and read it again.

There are some simple facts. Northeastern states have less murder. The ones with FEW gun laws , like NH and VT have the least murder.

And no, I'm not anti-south. I love the south. I'm just going off the statistics.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
Well I had my big boy pants on. Any pants I wear are big boy pants. ;-)

What I was trying to do was tie it all together. You can say that poverty or that southerners are more violent or whatever, and that those reasons are external to gun law efficacy, but other external reasons also generate gun laws so that the causal effect of the gun laws cannot be determined by looking at a point in time.

In order to do what these graphs and charts are purporting to do, one would need to follow the relevant violent crime statistics after each law was passed and follow that law's effect on the crime rate, controlled for by other identical or similarly situated states.

It is completely impossible to do this, regardless if you believe or "determine" that X type of gun laws have Y type of effect on crime. Unpossible. ;-)
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,175
Likes
1,247
Exactly. That was my point.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone who replied actually read my post.

Put on your big boy hats and read it again.

There are some simple facts. Northeastern states have less murder. The ones with FEW gun laws , like NH and VT have the least murder.

And no, I'm not anti-south. I love the south. I'm just going off the statistics.

Related: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294
 

92G

Rating - 99.1%
108   1   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
7,980
Likes
4,558
Location
NC
Can you guys brief me on how this case could change things?
meaning if SCOTUS hears it, how would their ruling change things for us in MA and the US in general?
thx in advance.
-squib308
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,917
Likes
2,618
Basically we will take the ruling and make positive change here in MA. But I can tell you, a SCOTUS ruling on carry is not likely to have a strong effect here on it's own. It's the states position that carry is not protected and no one has a right to an LTC. This would give us the right to an LTC, but not an unrestricted LTC-A. Only an unrestricted LTC-B. Yes, you read that right. The AG's office's position is that open carry is the only constitutionally viable form of carry, if carry is found to be a right.

So yes, the AGs office is saying you can all go carry openly and be happy with it. As you can imagine, this is not going to fix much here on it's own.
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,113
Likes
762
Location
Just North of Boston
I realize these things are hard to predict, but are you suggesting that if this case goes our way, the only remedy to Mass residents in terms of Constitutionally protected carry outside the home would be open carry of non-large capacity handguns?
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,917
Likes
2,618
I realize these things are hard to predict, but are you suggesting that if this case goes our way, the only remedy to Mass residents in terms of Constitutionally protected carry outside the home would be open carry of non-large capacity handguns?

I was wondering when the reactions would start...

Yes, the immediate effect would be that. The states position will be that you are constitutionally only able to open carry a revolver, with everything else being a privilege. This is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

Don't worry, we figured out the AGs game early on back in Hightower. The state is having fits over our Wesson case. We weaved in an outside the home argument into a situation where they can't possibly fight it with a straight face. They are in the hearing right now. It's going to be epic. People aren't attuned to how legally cool that case is but it's one to watch. We out-lawyered them on this one big time.

Also, as far as this open carry shit, we have plans. But it's not going to happen overnight.
 

pdm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
9,942
Likes
1,077
Location
Taxachusetts
I was wondering when the reactions would start...

Yes, the immediate effect would be that. The states position will be that you are constitutionally only able to open carry a revolver, with everything else being a privilege. This is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

Don't worry, we figured out the AGs game early on back in Hightower. The state is having fits over our Wesson case. We weaved in an outside the home argument into a situation where they can't possibly fight it with a straight face. They are in the hearing right now. It's going to be epic. People aren't attuned to how legally cool that case is but it's one to watch. We out-lawyered them on this one big time.

Also, as far as this open carry shit, we have plans. But it's not going to happen overnight.

And this is why I give every month.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,603
Likes
1,430
Location
The PRM
Basically we will take the ruling and make positive change here in MA. But I can tell you, a SCOTUS ruling on carry is not likely to have a strong effect here on it's own. It's the states position that carry is not protected and no one has a right to an LTC. This would give us the right to an LTC, but not an unrestricted LTC-A. Only an unrestricted LTC-B. Yes, you read that right. The AG's office's position is that open carry is the only constitutionally viable form of carry, if carry is found to be a right.

So yes, the AGs office is saying you can all go carry openly and be happy with it. As you can imagine, this is not going to fix much here on it's own.

Another great reason to support GOAL's efforts to streamline license down to one LTC. (it actually has a shot, Naughton has spoke in support of the idea)
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
10,351
Likes
3,854
Location
Green Eggs and...
I think you would see a resultant policy change in that case.

If open carry of big wheel guns is all that is protected, and cities like Boston refuse to issue unrestricted concealed permits, the moonbats will not take a liking to seeing tons of people carrying handguns openly. When the response is "well they won't let us conceal smaller handguns" I'm sure even the lefties will call for not having to see the scary guns.

I am a big believe in concealed carry vs open carry, but even with my unrestricted LTC-A if open carry becomes constitutionally protected you bet your ass that's all I'll do until every town in MA is shall issue on restricted licenses.

All this said, I am still skeptical that SCOTUS will take on a carry case anytime soon.

Mike
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,372
Likes
700
Location
Needham, MA
Also, as far as this open carry shit, we have plans. But it's not going to happen overnight.

Also, constitutionally protected open carry changes the political game. State courts somewhere, I think it was Ohio, found a right to OC. People started open carrying everywhere until a CCW bill was passed.
 

NewGuyRay

NES Member
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,113
Likes
762
Location
Just North of Boston
I was wondering when the reactions would start...

Yes, the immediate effect would be that. The states position will be that you are constitutionally only able to open carry a revolver, with everything else being a privilege. This is not a sprint, it's a marathon.

Don't worry, we figured out the AGs game early on back in Hightower. The state is having fits over our Wesson case. We weaved in an outside the home argument into a situation where they can't possibly fight it with a straight face. They are in the hearing right now. It's going to be epic. People aren't attuned to how legally cool that case is but it's one to watch. We out-lawyered them on this one big time.

Also, as far as this open carry shit, we have plans. But it's not going to happen overnight.

I realize that logic and common sense are not high priorities in the legislative process in this state. However, wouldn't Constitutionally protected open carry effectively cause concealed carry to become the de facto standard as a matter of political necessity?

Most people do not care enough about this issue to follow it closely, so I can imagine the mass hysteria that would ensue if civilians started appearing in places like Brookline and Cambridge open carrying.

I suppose for the time being, those with Class A LTC's burdened with a restriction of "No Carry" would be screwed at least initially?

Any chance of their being transcripts of today's arguments being made available?
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
Another great reason to support GOAL's efforts to streamline license down to one LTC. (it actually has a shot, Naughton has spoke in support of the idea)
Streamlining is a great idea and normally I think it would be uncontroversial. My concern, however, is that once the state realizes that eliminating the LTC/B bolsters the argument that there IS a right to the license, they'll back off.
 

Smokewagon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
2,742
Likes
495
Location
Central, MA
I am a big believe in concealed carry vs open carry, but even with my unrestricted LTC-A if open carry becomes constitutionally protected you bet your ass that's all I'll do until every town in MA is shall issue on restricted licenses.

Open carry the biggest scariest wheelgun you can find. Everyone going about their business with full size S&W 500's or a Magnum Research 45-70's would have the moonbats messing their shorts.

Additional Comedy Options: S&W 460XVR or whatever that 28mm revolver the guy in Poland made is called.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
569
Likes
75
Reading all these briefs and responses, I see Heller is like dog shit, it's everywhere. I really didn't have a grasp on how important that decision was to even us in Massachusetts.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
82   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,919
Likes
3,523
Location
Stoughton
Terraformer refers to this as a marathon, not a sprint. I think of it as a process of putting up a building. Heller was the foundation, because it codified the right to bear arms, if only inside ones residence. McDonald was another level, prohibiting the government from banning firearms by a certain class of people, those who live in publicly owned buildings. We're now waiting for SCOTUS to find a case they like that addresses the next question. That is whether there is a right to carry a weapon in public or whether it is a privilege that can be granted or denied at the discretion of the state. Drake might be that case, or maybe Peruta. The odds of SCOTUS taking up one of these cases are improved because there is now a very clear cut split between the federal Circuit Courts of appeal. If Drake is granted cert. and he prevails, it will have a very profound effect everywhere.

Reading all these briefs and responses, I see Heller is like dog shit, it's everywhere. I really didn't have a grasp on how important that decision was to even us in Massachusetts.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,917
Likes
2,618
Terraformer refers to this as a marathon, not a sprint. I think of it as a process of putting up a building. Heller was the foundation, because it codified the right to bear arms, if only inside ones residence. McDonald was another level, prohibiting the government from banning firearms by a certain class of people, those who live in publicly owned buildings. We're now waiting for SCOTUS to find a case they like that addresses the next question. That is whether there is a right to carry a weapon in public or whether it is a privilege that can be granted or denied at the discretion of the state. Drake might be that case, or maybe Peruta. The odds of SCOTUS taking up one of these cases are improved because there is now a very clear cut split between the federal Circuit Courts of appeal. If Drake is granted cert. and he prevails, it will have a very profound effect everywhere.

Both analogies are correct. In fact, if you want, you can merge them by saying it's like building a house in Greece. Someone builds a foundation, then they put up concrete pillars. Then 20 years later the floor is put in. Then when they retire they put up walls and move in. You have to have spent some time in greece to get it, but it's apropos. It takes a very long time to build this frickn' house.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
3,349
Likes
1,081
Location
RI - but not on the island part
Both analogies are correct. In fact, if you want, you can merge them by saying it's like building a house in Greece. Someone builds a foundation, then they put up concrete pillars. Then 20 years later the floor is put in. Then when they retire they put up walls and move in. You have to have spent some time in greece to get it, but it's apropos. It takes a very long time to build this frickn' house.
It's for the children ... our children I mean. Maybe our grandchildren.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,734
Likes
4,856
Location
My forest stronghold
The Ninth Circuit is ordering Sheriff Gore to weight in

Order:

Appellee William D. Gore is ordered to notify this Court in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order of his position on the pending motions to intervene or that he takes no position.

Appellee William D. Gore is further ordered to respond within fourteen days of the date of this order to the suggestion that this case is moot. See Opp’n to Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 16, Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 (“Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court nor the state could do anything to keep Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”). He shall explain any change in his policy that could affect this Court’s jurisdiction over this case.

This furthers my suspicion that the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit are waiting to see if the other moves first. I'm willing to bet that Monday's orders from SCOTUS will NOT include Drake.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,829
Likes
17,677
McDonald was another level, prohibiting the government from banning firearms by a certain class of people, those who live in publicly owned buildings.

The more important point of McDonald is that Heller is incorporated (ie, binding on the states). The government argued that it was only binding on non-state enclaves (ie, Washington DC).

Justice Sontamayer's decision showed a total disregard for stare decisis, when she said "she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun". If she respected the court's decision in Heller, she would have treated that issue as settled law rather than use McDonald as an opportunity to undermine a concept already accepted by the court.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
197
Likes
23
Location
somewhere in eastern MA
Justice Sontamayer's decision showed a total disregard for stare decisis, when she said "she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun". If she respected the court's decision in Heller, she would have treated that issue as settled law rather than use McDonald as an opportunity to undermine a concept already accepted by the court.

Bingo! The fact that McDonald was 5-4 instead of 9-0 shows how illegitimate and hypocritical the SCOTUS liberals are. Heller being 5-4, expected. But given Heller, McDonald should have been a slam-dunk 9-0 under SCOTUS's incorporation doctrine -- if the liberals were intellectually honest.

This is why SAF, NRA, etc. have got to keep pouring on the cases. If we can't get the SCOTUS decisions that'll make Heller/McDonald meaningful before one or more of Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito, or Roberts shuffle off this mortal coil with no Republican in the White House, Heller/McDonald will be for naught because the libs will neuter it.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,829
Likes
17,677
But given Heller, McDonald should have been a slam-dunk 9-0 under SCOTUS's incorporation doctrine -- if the liberals were intellectually honest.
I think you are referring to the doctrine of stare decisis.

You are correct - the level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
 
Top Bottom