Comm2A announces Hightower v. Boston Right to Carry case in MA

[Comm2A]

Commonwealth Second Amendment would like to announce that a Right to Possess/Right to Carry case was unstayed in the Federal District Court of Massachusetts on Dec 14th and is slated to proceed to be heard on April 7th, 2011. The plaintiff's counsel is now Alan Gura and Chester Darling who are being supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc (Comm2A). The case was stayed pending McDonald and with the decision in McDonald, Hightower v. Boston can now proceed. Ms. Hightower had her LTC A revoked as a result of an employment dispute soon after her successful 2008 LTC renewal. The amended complaint alleges that as a result of the license revocation, Ms. Hightower's right to possess and carry a firearm has been violated by the city of Boston's policy, practice and custom. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment to prevent the City of Boston from violating the right to keep and bear arms of all it's citizens including Ms. Hightower.

Hightower v. Boston is the first of a series of cases in MA litigating the lawful possession and carry of firearms in MA brought by Comm2A and it's partners SAF. The actions will seek to right the wrongs of a 100 years of licensing practice and policy which have systemically violated the due process, equal protection and second amendment rights of MA citizens. Within the coming months, Comm2A will be filing more complaints in MA and neighboring states. Comm2A will also continue to diligently work with the defense counsels of a variety of people unjustly charged with technical violations of MA gun law in order to prevent further erosion of MA citizen's rights. This erosion occurs due to the abusive and overbroad application of criminal statutes meant to punish true criminals but which are misused against law abiding citizens. Comm2A's continued efforts to protect the rights of New England citizens via strategic and targeted legal action is dependent on the continued support of the firearms community in MA and beyond. Please consider donating to Comm2A by visiting http://www.comm2a.org and clicking on Donate. Please also signup on the Comm2A mailing list in order to stay abreast of future events and activities by Comm2A.

Please visit Hightower v. Boston for more information and up-to-date information.

 

[yanici]

Thanks for the update. For all you NESers that haven't climbed on board the Comm2A train, it's time to do it. They're working for us and can use all of our support.

 

[Admin]

 

[economist]

Excellent! Donation on the way.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Great news.. Jumping to a "right to carry" case, before a "right to own" case? I would like to know how that was rationalized. Not questioning your expertise in any way just more thinking out loud.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

You can track Hightower and some other important cases on our website. We have a "Cases to Watch" section that I'm trying to keep updated.

We've got some other really good stuff planned too. Stay tuned

 

[Palladin]

Good job boys!!

 

[terraformer]

Great news.. Jumping to a "right to carry" case, before a "right to own" case? I would like to know how that was rationalized. Not questioning your expertise in any way just more thinking out loud.

It's a good question. Keep in mind there are more on the way. Another is getting filed mid January. Some others to follow in the coming months. Right to possess is actually part of three major issues one can consider a "Right to the License" because of how MA does it's licensing. Right to Possess, Right to Purchase and Right to Carry are all tied to the licensing. So since the state offers the license generally you just need to cover the issues as they come up. Hightower is both a Right to Possess and a Right to Carry carry case. But since Comm v. Loadholdt made it clear to MA (like McDonald didn't already...) that this state is not somehow exempt from Right to Possess, the issue is now not really does one have a right to a license, only what type of license they are allowed and under what circumstances. (The latter I will revisit in a tad). It's pretty clear to us that LTC B's are not acceptable but the state clearly will force a judge to convince them of that. It is also likely that B's as starter licenses or licenses for <25 yro's is verboten, but again, a judge is going to have to convince them of this apparently.

Enter Hightower. Boston pulled her license. You will see Boston is stating in their filings that if she reapplied, they will grant her a license. They don't mention which license and with what restrictions. So the desired result here is "LTC A - Restrictions: None" and obviously to have this occur in a way that enjoins them from doing this to others. Enter under what circumstances. It is conceivable, though not likely, that Hightower could cover all of the circumstances, but more likely only a subset of them. The reasons are long and varied on what the PDs pull licenses on. Then how (in the manner) they pull them is also another issue. It will take more than one to do and we will do them in a general order and with the goal of effectively neutering Ch 140 § 131(a).

Keep in mind that prior to GCA 68, the term suitable was used to eliminate felons, the mentally ill and others we today deem prohibited people (forgetting for now how fair GCA 68 is or is not, at least it is clear in who is prohibited). This is why that language exists in RI, NH and ME as well but with GCA 68, the term became redundant in those states (save a few notable exceptions in NH) as it should have here in MA (and for carry in RI). But in MA it was simply further abused. Had Suitability been redefined as equal to someone who is otherwise a prohibited person we would not be in this situation today.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I know nothing about this case other than what I read here and the links. Good job Comm2A & SAF!

I have a very good friend who was medically retired from the PD after ~27 yrs on the job due to an on the job auto accident (cruiser got rear-ended, radar unit went airborne striking him in the head causing massive trauma, etc.). The chief sent the Lt. to confiscate his ID, badges, uniforms, LTC . . . but left him with his Machine Gun License.

I suspect that this sort of thing happens much more often than we think.

 

[TheRoland]

I expect this to be a real roller-coaster of a case. Here we go.

 

[terraformer]

I know nothing about this case other than what I read here and the links. Good job Comm2A & SAF!

I have a very good friend who was medically retired from the PD after ~27 yrs on the job due to an on the job auto accident (cruiser got rear-ended, radar unit went airborne striking him in the head causing massive trauma, etc.). The chief sent the Lt. to confiscate his ID, badges, uniforms, LTC . . . but left him with his Machine Gun License.

I suspect that this sort of thing happens much more often than we think.

By leaving him his MG license, he prevented him from violating federal law. I suspect this chief knew exactly what he was doing. Did the guy move or get it reinstated?

 

[Len-2A Training]

By leaving him his MG license, he prevented him from violating federal law. I suspect this chief knew exactly what he was doing. Did the guy move or get it reinstated?

I'm pretty sure that he moved his guns to a friend's place in NH before this all happened. Subsequent to this event, he sold his house and moved to NH . . . walked into the PD and asked "what licenses do I need for my machine guns?" and they told him just go enjoy shooting them!

 

[terraformer]

I'm pretty sure that he moved his guns to a friend's place in NH before this all happened. Subsequent to this event, he sold his house and moved to NH . . . walked into the PD and asked "what licenses do I need for my machine guns?" and they told him just go enjoy shooting them!

Good for him. F'n state.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I expect this to be a real roller-coaster of a case. Here we go.

Perhaps not. I haven't yet seen an aggressive defense to this.

I'm pretty sure that he moved his guns to a friend's place in NH before this all happened. Subsequent to this event, he sold his house and moved to NH . . . walked into the PD and asked "what licenses do I need for my machine guns?" and they told him just go enjoy shooting them!

And I'll bet he's got a sweet public sector pension!

 

[RichM]

I just sent in my $50. I've been neglectful about supporting Comm2A to this point... I'll try to keep up in the future.

Nice job, Comm2A. Keep up the good work.

Reps coming your way, too!

 

[Len-2A Training]

And I'll bet he's got a sweet public sector pension!

He got screwed by the town, left with over $100K in medical bills from that accident. Turns out that MA only requires a town to carry $30K insurance for on-the-job accidents, after that he was on his own.

Cities/towns are exempt from the Workmen's Comp requirements for civilian employers.

 

[garandman]

Great news! Just sent a donation and subscribed to your communications and this forum.

It always makes me happy to learn of people who are stepping up to the plate to help right these wrongs.

 

[GSG]

Awesome news!

Great news.. Jumping to a "right to carry" case, before a "right to own" case? I would like to know how that was rationalized. Not questioning your expertise in any way just more thinking out loud.

Well, in Mass., you need an LTC to even possess a handgun, including antique blackpowder handguns. This is because of changes to MGL caused by the passing of the GCA 1998. I explained it in post #13 of this thread. So carry cases and handgun possession cases are essentially the same thing in Mass. (LTC restriction issues aside). This is the 1st I've heard of this case, so I'm not sure the specifics of what's being challenged, but I'm just speaking in general, as far as what MGL actually says WRT handguns. I'm going to do some reading and I'll post my thoughts on this case if I have any worth sharing.

 

[terraformer]

Awesome news!



Well, in Mass., you need an LTC to even possess a handgun, including antique blackpowder handguns. This is because of changes to MGL caused by the passing of the GCA 1998. I explained it in post #13 of this thread. So carry cases and handgun possession cases are essentially the same thing in Mass. (LTC restriction issues aside). This is the 1st I've heard of this case, so I'm not sure the specifics of what's being challenged, but I'm just speaking in general, as far as what MGL actually says WRT handguns. I'm going to do some reading and I'll post my thoughts on this case if I have any worth sharing.

The initial filing (which was done pro se) doesn't have much nor does the amended complaint. The filing to watch is the one that will be filed in early february. This is what will have the meat of the argument and serve as the basis of the hearing. This will have lots of good stuff worth reading through. The city's response in early march will be against that February filing and should be of interest.

 

[RichM]

Is this the lady who was a security guard or SPO who then had to take a job with the MBTA because of the loss of her license?

 

[terraformer]

Is this the lady who was a security guard or SPO who then had to take a job with the MBTA because of the loss of her license?

No. That woman got her license back I believe. Ms Hightower was full time Boston PD who also lived in Boston.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

He got screwed by the town, left with over $100K in medical bills from that accident. Turns out that MA only requires a town to carry $30K insurance for on-the-job accidents, after that he was on his own.

Cities/towns are exempt from the Workmen's Comp requirements for civilian employers.

In that case, that sucks. Sorry to hear it, it's not right.

 

[RichM]

... deleted...

 

[terraformer]

More information on the Hightower case:

http://www.masschiefs.org/documents/5-14-09%20~%20Hightower%20v.%20Boston%20PD%20%28discipline-1-day%20susp-other-juris-personnel%20records%29.pdf

That is correct. This was the source of the employment dispute.

 

[Coyote33]

Bravo!

Perhaps it is time to start making yourselves known.

RKBA! billboard?

I know nothing about this case other than what I read here and the links. Good job Comm2A & SAF!
...

I somehow remember reading something about this here on NES. Wasn't the woman a minority?




Also:

The state motto of Massachusetts: By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty (Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem in Latin).

Massachusetts Constitution:

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Bravo!

Perhaps it is time to start making yourselves known.

RKBA! billboard?

I like it, but not what I'd call cost effective. I'd rather put the money into the work.

I somehow remember reading something about this here on NES. Wasn't the woman a minority?

In fact, she is.

Also:

The state motto of Massachusetts: By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty (Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem in Latin).

Massachusetts Constitution:

Ironic, isn't it!

 

[Len-2A Training]

In that case, that sucks. Sorry to hear it, it's not right.

It was a lot worse than that, but I won't get into it here.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

I'm pretty sure that he moved his guns to a friend's place in NH before this all happened. Subsequent to this event, he sold his house and moved to NH . . . walked into the PD and asked "what licenses do I need for my machine guns?" and they told him just go enjoy shooting them!

Good move on his part. Get out while the getting is good. If the chief yanked the MG license, the PD would have confiscated his machine guns and probably turn them over to BATFE. This could have happened at any time. The poor guy would have been out tens of thousands of dollars at the least. A nice way to say "thank you" for 27 years of service!

 

[TheRoland]

Perhaps not. I haven't yet seen an aggressive defense to this.

I'm not a lawyer, but am more than a little worried that this could get disposed of without reaching the substantive issues. I think summary judgment might be a nail-biter.

 

[terraformer]

I'm not a lawyer, but am more than a little worried that this could get disposed of without reaching the substantive issues. I think summary judgment might be a nail-biter.

That result could occur on many of the lawsuits that ourselves, SAF and others fund. Ultimately you don't care if it's a 2A argument (though preferred and it is usually a subtext at minimum), a 14A argument or some other argument that carries the day so long as the day is carried and it stops the bad actor from doing it to someone else in the future. Here the judge can rule narrowly but there will still be by necessity something to work with for others moving forward. No one involved with these things suggests that there is one single bullet lawsuit to solve all problems.