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

What we need here is someone to take up a case questioning the entire premise of licensing, not just the bits and pieces surrounding the how and why of it.
 
What we need here is someone to take up a case questioning the entire premise of licensing, not just the bits and pieces surrounding the how and why of it.

During WWII, we didn't just head straight for Tokyo.

The guys in Comm2A seem plenty smart to me and their strategy seems sound.
 
Last edited:
True. Courts like tight, concise, and incremental issues. That's why Heller was so narrowly focused on possession of a firearm in the home and in the Federal District of Columbia. That's why McDonald focused on expanding the fundamental right affirmed in Heller to the states. That's why the progeny of Heller/McDonald (Palmer, Richards, Peterson, Woollard, Mueller, etc.) focus principally on right-to-carry and are narrowly tailored to that single issue.

If you tie up too many issues in a single action or jump several steps on the ladder you greatly increase the complexity of your litigation and consequently exponentially increase your risk. We cannot risk making bad law because the right issue was litigated at the wrong time or in the wrong way. There are no do-overs in litigation, no second 'bites at the apple'. Once you bring an issue to the courts, argue a case and lose, you're done as soon as your appeals run out. You do not get to find a new plaintiff, re-argue your case and hope for a better outcome. The stakes are very high and the wrong people bringing the wrong cases can ruin it for everyone.

The state's authority to license a fundamental right is a great issue, but there are quite a few more dots to connect before anyone should even think about going there.

We didn't end up in a present situation overnight. The state has been chipping away at guns for decades and it will take years to repair the damage. The barriers that have been erected to gun ownership and possession in MA won't come crashing down in large dramatic chunks. The bricks will have to be knocked out one at a time until there's no integrity left that that 'framework' at all.
 
One challenge in any controversial issue is to frame the case tightly so that it is not possible to construct an intellectually honest framework to explain why the law does not mandate the outcome you desire. Firearms cases are one area in which is often appears that the court will determine what public policy it wishes to see, and then fit the logic to the desired outcome. Just look at the case of the Supreme Court Justice who stated that the 2nd amendment was "settled case law" at her confirmation hearing; got confirmed; and then dissented in McDonald stating there is no right to own a handgun.

One wins cases in court with legal arguments, not political arguments or philosophical presentations. When presenting a case on a narrow and specific issue, it is much easier to directly support your case by building on existing law and precedent, and doing so also preserves a clear conceptual issue for possible appeal. Judges are concerned not only about following the law, but writing good decisions that are not overturned on appeal. A properly constructed case makes it easy for the court to do the right thing; makes it obvious a decision inconsistent with law will be ripe grounds for appeal; and does not provide fertile ground for legislation from the bench.
 
Last edited:
Oral arguments lasted a little less than 1.5 hours. The judge was well briefed, very attentive, and asked good questions. Alan Gura had about 30 minutes to argue his case which focused on things like the need for objective standards in licensing, due process and prior restraint. The state argued their case for about 35 minutes and focused primarily on issues of standing and ripeness since the plaintiff didn't reapply for her license or challenge it's revocation in district court.

The city's case only took about 15 minutes and was probably the most interesting. The city basically said that if the plaintiff reapplied she'd get at least a restricted license. And that would allow her to open carry a firearm - in a locked case, unloaded. This was repeated three times. The city also defended licensing by emphasizing that it was critically important to know who in the city had guns and to know as much information as possible about people who own guns.

This last part goes a long way towards validating my view that the state's political and LE establishments view people who own guns as a grave threat to public safety.

I'm guessing we won't have to wait too long for a decision in this case.
 
So I guess they want to know about everyone that ends up in the city and carries while here for work or business all day and night too?

I will bet MONEY that there are more people that end up in the city, all day long, that legally carry, than there are of people that live and have a LTC-A permit in this crap hole.

Must drive them all nuts that they can't do anything about it eh?
 
So I guess they want to know about everyone that ends up in the city and carries while here for work or business all day and night too?

I will bet MONEY that there are more people that end up in the city, all day long, that legally carry, than there are of people that live and have a LTC-A permit in this crap hole.

Must drive them all nuts that they can't do anything about it eh?

It's all about CONTROL!!

There was a story about someone stopped in Boston ccw'g and when he showed his LTC to a Boston PO, the guy was told that it "was not valid here, since it wasn't issued by Boston"!! [shocked] The guy wasn't a Boston resident, thus his LTC was issued by the PD in the town he lived in. Maybe it was just ignorance by the BPO and maybe it was a attempt by those running Boston to mis-inform their officers so that they would hassle ccw visitors to the city? Don't know, but neither would surprise me. [BTW: I don't remember where I read that or if it was a 1st person story or not. It was a few years ago.]
 
It was difficult not to laugh out loud when the city's attorney suggested that open carry unloaded in a locked case would satisfy 2A.
 
I hope the court won't try to legislate from the bench....not that we've ever seen that here.

Gura discussed this in the argument. His point was that his client is not asking the court to re-write MA's gun laws. All that Hightower is asking is the nebulous 'suitability' requirement be limited to a set of objective standards and that people who's LTCs are revoked or denied be given due process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a story about someone stopped in Boston ccw'g and when he showed his LTC to a Boston PO, the guy was told that it "was not valid here, since it wasn't issued by Boston"!!

This was a problem with non-resident permits issued before the new MIRCS based system. The old non-resident permits (I had one from MA when I lived in NY - $5.00/year, no in-person requirement - the good old days) were printed on a blank generic permit form that didn't even say what it was a permit for until the state typed that into an empty box. The state even sent you a blank permit when you applied (I think I still have one in the files). You then signed it, send in requisite paperwork, and it came back filled in and signature stamped. For all I know the state could have been using the same form to issue elevator permits.

They were larger than the resident permits; did not have a photo or fingerprint and (as I recall) were not laminated. They didn't resemble the resident LTC is form, size or style.
 
Oral arguments lasted a little less than 1.5 hours. The judge was well briefed, very attentive, and asked good questions. ....
..
I'm guessing we won't have to wait too long for a decision in this case.

Thank you very much for the narative.

Do you feel the Judge was equally amused as we were by things such as "...she'd get at least a restricted license. And that would allow her to open carry a firearm - in a locked case, unloaded." ?
 
The judge's questions were good and informed, but they didn't give anything away. The previous judge seemed to be very interested in the underlying issues, but I didn't see it here. I'm not holding my breath for a win and even if we did get the kind of decision we wanted the state would most certainly appeal to the First Circuit.
 
I was under the impression that this might change things regarding Boston LTC-As and how they (don't) issue them. Former police or not, wouldn't the same rules apply to all citizens?

It will, in due time it will change things. This case won't do everything, but it will do something which will be built upon.
 
Opinion released today. The judge denied Hightower's MSJ and granted the city and state's MSJs. In other words, we lost. I'm sure the appeal to the 1st circuit will be filed shortly.
 
Opinion released today. The judge denied Hightower's MSJ and granted the city and state's MSJs. In other words, we lost. I'm sure the appeal to the 1st circuit will be filed shortly.

I was just writing up an announcement... [laugh] The opinion is uploaded on our site. Let me link it and you all can read it.
 
http://www.comm2a.org/index.php?opt...ht-to-carry-discretionary-licensing&Itemid=38

The decision is linked off of our site. As for what happened in the decision, it was eh. The judge basically weaved this story that clearly illustrates she knew what the problem was and where we wanted to be but basically stated that the possession of the extra killy "large capacity" firearms or concealed carry was not constitutionally protected but she did hint that denial of a LTC B would likely not pass muster, even under her analysis which was rationale basis. This is how she rationalized basically doing nothing, regardless of the very well known principle that even if something is not covered under the 1st amendment, any law effecting it must still be reviewed with elevated scrutiny. That concept should apply to the second amendment.

In legal terms, the judge claimed Hightower's case was not "ripe" which means that Hightower had not been harmed. This is far from the truth and we all know the harm that these particular policies have on our rights.

This has been a common theme because all of the district courts are basically punting for one reason or another. That said, this behavior of punting everything has a silver lining as it is forcing the appeals courts to have to deal with rather basic issues of law that otherwise would have been pushed off years if not decades.

Stay tuned for more but it looks like SCOTUS is becoming a court of first resort for people in moon bat states like CA, NY, MD, MA and NJ.
 
Interesting note from the opinion;

Specifically, as of Febraury 22, 2011, there were 3,798 active Class A licenses in
Boston, of which 2,239 (or 59%) were unrestricted, 1,257 (or just over 33%) were restricted to
sporting activities, 291 (or just under 8%) were restricted for employment purposes, 10 (or less
than 1%) were restricted to home protection, and 1 (much less than 1%) was restricted for film
production or theater use. Second Affidavit of Jason Guida, Director of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau, D. 40-15 at ¶ 8.

Specifically, from 2008 through 2010, 92,765 applications for licenses to approve were
submitted, and 90,865 applications were granted. First Guida Aff., D. 35-6 at ¶ 7. Of the 1,900
applications that were denied, 969 were denied on the ground that the applicant was statutorily
disqualified to hold a license, and 931 were denied on the ground that the applicant was deemed
unsuitable by the licensing authority. Id.

It appears that revocation is uncommon. For example, in calendar year 2007, the year
before Hightower’s license was revoked, the Boston Police Department revoked 50 licenses.
Second Guida Aff., D. 40-15 at ¶ 6. Assuming for the moment that the number of licenses in
Boston was similar in both 2007 and 2011, and given that in 2011 there were 3,798 active Class
A licenses (and that the record does not reflect the number of active Class B licenses), it appears
that roughly 1% of the active licenses in Boston are revoked annually. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom