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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
+1James,
I sincerely hope you succeed.
Holy crap, the amended complaint is 653 pages and names 44 John Doe defendants on top of every state/town official he could think of.
I sincerely hope you succeed.
The indictment for The United States v. Anthony Accetturo et al. was about 10% as long as that. Kind of ironic too since he's hinting about RICO damages in the future.
Even success is failure here, this blindfolded birthday boy is walking around the house hitting stuff with a stick because someone told him about a pinata. If the stars all align and through some miracle he wins, all we're going to be left with is whatever language the courts want to lay down about the two cases everyone else is trying to build on. Basically you want your case to put words in the court's mouth based on things it's already said. He's handing them a crayon and rolling out a giant piece of paper, but trusting that they're only going to color within his imaginary lines.
In my 7th grade science class the teacher did a demonstration where she laid out all the ingredients to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on her desk and we had to write down instructions for her that she could follow to make it. Some people wrote generic steps: "Now put the knife in the peanut butter and spread it on the bread," so she stabbed the knife through the lid and rubbed the jar around on top of the entire loaf, and said "Well that's what you said, isn't it?" Then those steps were better explained: "Remove the lid from the jar, use the knife to take a small amount of peanut butter out. Lay flat one piece of bread and gently smear the peanut butter on it with the knife."
She was pretending to not understand our explanations because she was trying to show us that you need to be very, very specific, and not assume that everyone is on the same page. Court is similar in that you need to tell them things in their language, and you need to be able to walk them through it like a 4 year old. I forsee some damaged jars and crushed, sticky loaves of bread here. There's a very good reason the 6A recognizes your right to consult with someone who's less lost than you on the law.
I'm doing something by supporting Comm2A. They bring in attorneys who actually know what they're doing to fight for our rights. You know that Alan Gura guy, who won McDonald and Heller? I watched him argue a case for us in Boston this week.Or, you can opt not to do anything, and just whine and moan about loosing your civil rights by virtue of not fighting for them.
So you're disqualified then?You do not need to be an attorney to file an Amicus Brief, only to be coherent enough to make a good point.
The complaint may have flaws and errors in it, but the case itself is sound, and I am standing on solid ground with my claims.
ANYBODY can file an amicus brief
so why don't you take a dozen or so issues in the case that you feel woudl make for a good amicus brief, write up a scholarly essay on the matter, and submit it to the court.
For example, you could take M.G.L c 140, section 123 and expound and argue the section to the court as it being unconstitutional, and then move onto another section for which you would like explained better. You simply take you understanding of the Constitutional issues, and explain them to the COurt in a way that helps the Court better understand the issue, and to define it in a way so that when the Court makes it decision it becomes pro-civil rights.
Or, you can opt not to do anything, and just whine and moan about loosing your civil rights by virtue of not fighting for them.
+1, Although I think GSG is giving some very sound advice. Right attitude, but the application needs major tweaking. I'm not implying this as a method of saying "oh schumer!! We can't start charging forward, what if someone notices us!?!" (which I have seen happen with another local 2A organization), but I am saying we did not lose our rights in one fail swoop and it would be haphazard to think they can all get returned in one fail swoop.How about instead of shitting all over this guy you all encourage Comm2A to help him out?
How about instead of shitting all over this guy you all encourage Comm2A to help him out?
The Second Amendment has often proven the adage that hard cases make for bad law. Broad disposition of poor Second Amendment claims may hurt the legitimate rights of peaceful, responsible people whose conduct should be protected.
Prior to its resurrection in Heller, a leading cause of the Second Amendment’s demise was the fact that in most cases raising a Second Amendment issue, the claimants were often unsympathetic criminal defendants or others raising facially untenable claims. Miller and its progeny proved as much. In the post-Heller environment, amicus strongly believes that the greatest threats to the Second Amendment’s vitality continue to be poorly-considered, often extremist positions litigated by people who should know better.
Amicus does not reference the criminal defense bar’s duty to provide zealous representation, although such cases will often not produce positive precedent. The problems manifest themselves in myriad other ways, for example, with sweeping Second Amendment complaints alleging vast conspiracies.[7]
[7]Atkinson v. Town of Rockport, No. 11-cv-11073-NMG (D. Mass. filed June 15, 2011) (474 page pro se third-amended complaint); Rothery v. Blanas, No. 08-cv-2064-JAM (E.D. Cal. filed Sept. 2, 2008) (78 page, 808 paragraph amended complaint), appeal pending, No. 09-16852 (9th Cir. filed Aug. 25, 2009).
I just wasted 64 cents updating the docket: http://ia600607.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137434/gov.uscourts.mad.137434.docket.html
Update
Rockport man indicted in 09' weapons case
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/topstories/x646421685/Rockport-man-indicted-in-09-weapons-case
and possessing high-capacity firearms — among them an M109 rocket launcher.