Never read Animal Farm I guess.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?
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***
Never read Animal Farm I guess.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?
There is another one where they say 2% of all licenses are denied. Clearly the soft denials on restrictions or apps that are never processed are never counted.
Yep. Easy to have low denial rates when you refuse to accept applications you don't like.
Given the record presently before the Court - including the fact that under the current statutory scheme, roughly 98% of license to carry applications are granted and only 1% are denied on the basis of unsuitability, First Guida Aff., D. 35-6 at ¶ 7 - the risk of erroneously classifying a suitable applicant as unsuitable appears quite low, and it is difficult to fathom what errors of this kind a pre-revocation hearing would prevent that the written application process and course of judicial review under Mass. Gen. L. c. 140, § 131(f) would not.
Third, although Hightower asserts that all she wants to be able to do is carry her .38 caliber revolver, a regular-capacity firearm,
either concealed or unconcealed, for self-defense purposes, Pl. Opp. Memo 45 at 7-9 (“Hightower
wants a permit that would allow her to carry a handgun - the one she had seized from her - for self
defense . . . Hightower might prefer carrying concealed, but her testimony flatly rejects [an] attempt
to convert this case into one that turns on concealment. It does not”),13 she has never sought and has
never been denied a narrower license, such as a restricted Class A license or a Class B license, that
would allow her to do so.
Is the judge saying here that Hightower would be able to lawfully carry her .38 outside the home on a restricted Class A or B, since it's a regular-capacity as opposed to a high-capacity firearm? Or am I missing something?
The defendants argued that she could open carry on an LTC-B.
...Ironically, the decision qualifies some of the data it uses:Given the record presently before the Court
How come the court was not given any "contrary" data?
I've been saying since McDonald came down that a challenge to discretion on restricted As was almost a slam dunk. Assuming our side prevails in the pending SCOTUS bear cases, it's probably a waste of resources to challenge it separately.This actually has some value as the state has consistently maintained that there is not right to any license since in-home possession of a firearm is no illegal. (and yes, we have a ready response for this). Of course they don't acknowledge that if you don't have a permit the police will take your guns because you need a permit under Chap 140, but they won't prosecute your because 269-10(a) creates and exemption for residential possession.
I was there too, and it took all I had to not laugh out loud.Open carry is also interesting here as we all know open-carry is not tolerated. Three time in open court the city made clear that Hightower could open carry with a LTC/B or a restricted LTC/A - as long as she open carried an unloaded gun in a locked case! Yes, that's the city's position, I was there.
Donation toward funding appeal en-route.Yet another case that moves up to it's respective circuit.
So how long before it reaches the Appelate Court and a decision is rendered? This is infuriating pure B.S., and I'm sure I am speaking for hundreds, if not thousands, just like me who have B.S. restrictions based on someone's opinion, not facts.
So, 30 days until notice of appeal is filed. From there, it could be 6 months. It could also be longer. Patience is a virtue right now as this issue is not getting settled quickly anywhere in this country.
I think it's pretty likely that the appeal will get stayed pending a SCOTUS decision in whichever of the 4 2A cases they take up this term. My money is on a decision in late 2012 / early 2013 after a SCOTUS decision in June 2012.
EDIT: Apparently, the SCOTUS has asked for further filings on the three pending 2A cert petitions they were considering this week? Trying to find more information.
To my knowledge no certs have been granted for 2A cases yet this term. I'm a pessimist, but am bracing for a really disastrous year.
EDIT: Apparently, the SCOTUS has asked for further filings on the three pending 2A cert petitions they were considering this week? Trying to find more information.
EDIT: I guess we may find out about Willians v. Maryland on Monday. If cert is not granted in that case, this year will likely suck.
Where did you hear this?
I think he's talking about the responses to cert petitions requested in Masciandaro and Lowery. There was an article somewhere that mistakenly implied another filing was pending in Williams.
The requested response in Masciandaro is due 10/11 and Lowery on 10/12. I believe that 30 day extensions are available for the asking for both of these. I can't find a SCOTUS docket for Comm. v Powell.
Jar, you've become quite the jail house lawyer.
I think he's talking about the responses to cert petitions requested in Masciandaro and Lowery. There was an article somewhere that mistakenly implied another filing was pending in Williams.
.
My guess is Williams won't be denied this time around, and they'll hold it until all of the filings are in in the other 3 2A cases, and then schedule all of them for the same conference...GVR
I think he's talking about the responses to cert petitions requested in Masciandaro and Lowery. There was an article somewhere that mistakenly implied another filing was pending in Williams.
The requested response in Masciandaro is due 10/11 and Lowery on 10/12. I believe that 30 day extensions are available for the asking for both of these. I can't find a SCOTUS docket for Comm. v Powell.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/09/30/more-district-court-opinion-failures/
Some coverage in the blogosphere.
Comment Policy
.... happy to tolerate a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but I'm not going to tolerate nastiness, vitriol, or excessively snippy snarkiness (say that three times fast) toward the author(s) or other commenters. Regular snarkiness is fine, especially directed toward Brady Campaign folks, or certain NRA F rated politicians. You may make your case passionately, but civility is expected.