Article: Comm2a Wesson Complaint Press Release

[Len-2A Training]

Someone should have dropped this case before it got this far. Retreat could have been the better part of valor for these towns so I'm glad they pushed it!

It is not the chief's discretion at issue here, MGL prohibits the issuance to anyone convicted of possessing even 1 joint (statutory lifetime DQ) and it doesn't matter if it was a single incident 80 years ago! So Comm2A is actually going after the state law with this suit.

 

[jar]

Yeah, but we can't run infinitely asynchronous, I/O blocking will eventually kick in.

Well, the more potential blocking tasks that can be optimized, the faster things can go. We can't do anything about the overloaded federal court system, but we can shower Comm2A with donations so that things don't block on funding. Good to see a new local attorney as part of the team; that should help with blocking on staff availability.

 

[jar]

It is not the chief's discretion at issue here, MGL prohibits the issuance to anyone convicted of possessing even 1 joint (statutory lifetime DQ) and it doesn't matter if it was a single incident 80 years ago! So Comm2A is actually going after the state law with this suit.

Yup. However, it's not a facial challenge to the statute, but a challenge as applied to these specific plaintiffs. The statute bans LTCs for those convicted 'of a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, or sale of controlled substances. In other words, Comm2A is arguing that denying for a decades old marijuana posssession fine is unconstitutional, not that it's unconstitutional to deny guns to a dealer transporting a truckload of cocaine. This is a much lower bar to cross.

 

[DemonChronicles]

Unless it's distribution or intent, personal possession should in no way be a life time ban.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Unless it's distribution or intent, personal possession should in no way be a life time ban.

And it isn't if you were smart enough to get caught after 2008.

 

[Quiet]

Someone should have dropped this case before it got this far. Retreat could have been the better part of valor for these towns so I'm glad they pushed it!

it's not the towns, it's mass law. This is the way to go after the law. The towns are just caught in the crossfire.

 

[maclamb]

...and I hate to admit that I once lived in Natick.....all yuppiue now......Kinsky territory....wonder if that relationship, both being anti-gun, means thaqt Natick will receieve more state public safety grants?

 

[jar]

...and I hate to admit that I once lived in Natick.....all yuppiue now......Kinsky territory....wonder if that relationship, both being anti-gun, means thaqt Natick will receieve more state public safety grants?

While the Natick chief is named in the suit, he hasn't done anything but follow state law. The law says he can't issue an LTC to someone convicted of a drug offense. According to the GTGRIYMT thread, Natick is green, and the most recent experience posted was positive. No extra BS, and they put ALP in to the computer.

 

[gearwhore14]

Finally a lawsuit that isn't a complete waste of time. Go for it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Finally a lawsuit that isn't a complete waste of time. Go for it.

Are you suggesting our other lawsuits are wastes of time?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Article from MetroWest Daily News.

They've generally given us good coverage!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

And the Herald: Graham: Shoot-out over gun laws | Boston Herald

 

[ThePreBanMan]

A for effort guys, but there is no way you win this one. Fighting it is a waist of resources. Pot is still illegal under Federal law. Violating Federal law has a direct relation to suitability. So there is no path to victory here...

I think the resources would be better expended challenging the magazine ban, - which ban commonly available and commonly in use firearm accessories and is contradictory to Heller.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't see it.

 

[jar]

A for effort guys, but there is no way you win this one. Fighting it is a waist of resources. Pot is still illegal under Federal law. Violating Federal law has a direct relation to suitability. So there is no path to victory here...

Sure, pot is illegal under federal law, but a possession conviction doesn't make you prohibited from owning handguns.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

A for effort guys, but there is no way you win this one. Fighting it is a waist of resources. Pot is still illegal under Federal law. Violating Federal law has a direct relation to suitability. So there is no path to victory here...

I think the resources would be better expended challenging the magazine ban, - which ban commonly available and commonly in use firearm accessories and is contradictory to Heller.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't see it.

Sure, pot is illegal under federal law, but a possession conviction doesn't make you prohibited from owning handguns.

This, but there's more.

Don't think of this as a pot case, think of it as a prohibitions case. These people were perfectly safe and responsible potential gun owners until 1998 when the state decided to make them otherwise and punish them again for a single past offense. The lifetime ban can only be viewed as retrospective punishment. The state has a legitimate interest in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous persons, but that's not what they're doing here. If they were dangerous they would have been prohibited from the time of their conviction. If simple possession made someone dangerous the legislature would not have decriminalized possession in 2008 and limited punishment to a single $100 file. You CANNOT be denied an LTC for a post-2008 possession fine.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A for effort guys, but there is no way you win this one. Fighting it is a waist of resources. Pot is still illegal under Federal law. Violating Federal law has a direct relation to suitability. So there is no path to victory here...

1. "suitability" is a uniquely MA concept untested in Federal courts; we're talking about outright prohibition.

2. The federal government will hire FBI and other armed three letter agents who admit to use of the heathen devil weed earlier in their life, provided a certain period of use-free time has passed prior to applying for federal LE positions.

The lifetime ban can only be viewed as retrospective punishment.

This touches on a very important point that has been intentionally ignored my MA courts.

If something is a right, taking it away is punishment. MA courts have long held the position that there is no right to gun ownership, therefore, taking away the ability to own a gun is not "punishment" and thus not subject to the level of review (finding of guilt and that pesky stuff) needed to punish someone. Now that SCOTUS has determined it is a right, this needs to change.

 

[RichM]

Wouldn't it be helpful to have a plaintiff who had his LTC until the law changed and suddenly made him "unsuitable?" It seems like that would be a slam dunk! "Mr. Jones peacefully carried a firearm for 15 years until he was suddenly prohibited as a result of his actions 40 years ago, which have never been repeated."

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Wouldn't it be helpful to have a plaintiff who had his LTC until the law changed and suddenly made him "unsuitable?" It seems like that would be a slam dunk! "Mr. Jones peacefully carried a firearm for 15 years until he was suddenly prohibited as a result of his actions 40 years ago, which have never been repeated."

Yes and no. We have to go with what we've got. Not every potential poster-child wants to be on the milk carton. In this case new people were better too as there's absolutely no carry question involved here. We're only asserting that they have right to a functioning firearm in the home per Heller. Had we used someone who had carried up until 1998 we'd have gotten into the "no right outside the home" quagmire.

 

[PaulD]

1. "suitability" is a uniquely MA concept untested in Federal courts; we're talking about outright prohibition.

2. The federal government will hire FBI and other armed three letter agents who admit to use of the heathen devil weed earlier in their life, provided a certain period of use-free time has passed prior to applying for federal LE positions.


This touches on a very important point that has been intentionally ignored my MA courts.

If something is a right, taking it away is punishment. MA courts have long held the position that there is no right to gun ownership, therefore, taking away the ability to own a gun is not "punishment" and thus not subject to the level of review (finding of guilt and that pesky stuff) needed to punish someone. Now that SCOTUS has determined it is a right, this needs to change.

I see what you did there.

Nice.

 

[Jbarila]

How do you eat an elephant?... One bite at a time.....Nice job guys!

 

[InTheBlack]

My local police officer involved in the application process encouraged me to apply, get denied, and then appeal. He was pretty positive about it. It is apparently NOT an open and shut case.

 

[Tony2Times]

Get it done!

 

[PaulD]

Possibly relevant: Mass. High Court: Sharing A Joint Is Not A Crime | WBUR

 

[M1911]

My local police officer involved in the application process encouraged me to apply, get denied, and then appeal. He was pretty positive about it. It is apparently NOT an open and shut case.

I suggest that you speak with a knowledgeable firearms attorney and/or Comm2A before applying and getting denied. Police officers aren't the best folks to give legal advice.

 

[usp45ct]

My local police officer involved in the application process encouraged me to apply, get denied, and then appeal. He was pretty positive about it. It is apparently NOT an open and shut case.

and spend a few bucks and go green.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

My local police officer involved in the application process encouraged me to apply, get denied, and then appeal. He was pretty positive about it. It is apparently NOT an open and shut case.

I suggest that you speak with a knowledgeable firearms attorney and/or Comm2A before applying and getting denied. Police officers aren't the best folks to give legal advice.

The licensing officer doesn't know what he's talking about and is giving you unqualified and dangerous legal advice.

If you expect to get denied it is incredibly stupid to apply unless you have a well formulated follow up plan and the resources to go the distance. It you are a statutorily prohibited person this is especially true as you cannot win an appeal without overturning the law. This is an enormously risky proposition in state court even with marijuana where we think the SJC might be inclined to rule in our favor and over turn this part of GCA98. Once you start in state court you stay there until you've exhausted the state appeals process. If you lose at the SJC your only avenue of appeal is a remote chance the US Supreme Court will take your case. This is how we get bad case law.

Wesson v. Fowler was designed from the ground up to challenge and overturn the prohibition in questions. Our plaintiffs knew exactly what they were doing when they applied. They knew they'd be denied and we had a plan for how to proceed. Additional challenges of this kind are pointless, a waste of resources and even potentially dangerous.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

We've updated the website with the schedule for Wesson v. Fowler.

Be prepared for a long wait. Motions aren't due until March 3, 2014