Comm2A Challenges Firearms Prohibition for Lawfully Admitted Aliens

[drgrant]

No, it's not relevant in this thread. Post your question in the MA laws forum.

This. This is not a "ma legal minutae" thread.

 

[economist]

Interesting ruling today:

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/01/state-high-court-hands-victory-immigrants-who-sued-because-health-coverage-exclusion/5v6YlHRTucxPR5aIQkUqoM/index.html?p1=News_links

The state’s highest court has handed a victory to legal immigrants in Massachusetts who sued because they were excluded from subsidized health coverage.

The Supreme Judicial Court said that the law excluding the immigrants “violates their rights to equal protection under the Massachusetts Constitution.”

http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2012/01/massachusetts_cannot_cut_immig.html

Facing a financial crisis, the state had cut all non-citizens from the program. But last year, the Supreme Judicial Court held that this kind of discrimination—based on alienage—could only be constitutional if the state’s justification were subjected to the highest form of legal scrutiny.

 

[BostonBullit]

interesting ruling today on legal immigrants and the states healthcare system. if excluding them from that system is unconstitutional then how can be denying them their 2a rights be ok?

http://www.boston.com/Boston/whitec...rC0i62XhTvnAkDLeg59J/index.html?p1=News_links


ETA: dammit economist, beat me by 1min!

 

[terraformer]

Good questions... We shall see if this is consistent with our case at some point. God knows when...

 

[cekim]

Good questions... We shall see if this is consistent with our case at some point. God knows when...

I heard a blurb on the radio about an SJC decision today regarding resident aliens and RomneyCare that mirrors the claim here.

So, of course they will ignore the precedent and rule against you...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I heard a blurb on the radio about an SJC decision today regarding resident aliens and RomneyCare that mirrors the claim here.

So, of course they will ignore the precedent and rule against you...

The SJC health care case is a Massachusetts case; Fletcher v. Haas is a federal case - so I don't think a state court ruling, based on the state constitution, has any precedental impact upon a federal case following the US Consitition (although other federal cases, like Say v. KY may have some influence)

 

[cekim]

The SJC health care case is a Massachusetts case; Fletcher v. Haas is a federal case - so I don't think a state court ruling, based on the state constitution, has any precedental impact upon a federal case following the US Consitition (although other federal cases, like Say v. KY may have some influence)

I know it was meant in jest to point out the hypocrisy of the the SJC. Though they did, according to the story, make a distinction between legal and illegal aliens which is a step in the right direction.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I know it was meant in jest to point out the hypocrisy of the the SJC. Though they did, according to the story, make a distinction between legal and illegal aliens which is a step in the right direction.

The interesting thing about this case is that the law being protested limited participation to legal aliens of 5 or more years residence, and the ruling extends it to all legal aliens.

Much of MA case law stems from the fact that gun ownership is not a "right" under the state constitution, therefore, it will be interesting to see if the SJC would adopt the logic of "we enforce rights granted by the MA constitution, not those granted by the US constitution". It's a setup for the classic case of a court being stuck between the rock of what law and precedent requires, and the hard place of what the justices want the decision to be.

What was missing from the SJC decision was the phrase "....especially in this day and age".

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

What was missing from the SJC decision was the phrase "....especially in this day and age".

- Exactly!

The SJC seems to have ruled based upon equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution where as Fletcher and alienage cases in other states depend primarily on the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. In this respect EP applies to more than just enumerated rights. Fourteenth Amendment based alienage suits in SD, KY, WA, and Omaha have all been argued not on the bases of a Second Amendment right, but on the basis that aliens were being treated fundamentally different from anyone else. Aliens are a 'suspect class' meaning that anything that differentiates them is subject to heightened scrutiny by the courts - at least federally.

I haven't read the SJC decision and am curious to see if they employ the same concept of 'suspect class'. It also makes me wonder how they would have viewed an action like Fletcher. The SJC is kind of quirky around some types for rights and I could see them ruling in our favor on Fletcher without ever addressing the 'right' of gun ownership. I'm doubt they would agree with the AG that aliens can't be trusted with guns or that 4th amendment protections only apply to citizens.

ETA: SJC Healthcare Decision.

 

[50 BMG]

Just became a Gold Sponsor...come on folks step up and donate to this organization!! They work for us and our second amendment rights.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Just became a Gold Sponsor...come on folks step up and donate to this organization!! They work for us and our second amendment rights.

Thank you!!! We are 100% volunteer, and all of your donations go to the cause - no salaries, purchases from businesses owned by directors, etc.

Getting legal actions started sometimes seems like swimming in molasses, but we are currently working on a couple of cases we anticipate filing this year.

 

[CdP]

Bronze here. Will try to increase over time. Thanks for the great work guys!

 

[jar]

Man, this case has been taking a long time. It's not Palmer long yet, but nearly 7 months since the oral argument. Of course, Woolard took 8 months and was definitely worth waiting for. Hopefully we'll get some good news here soon also.

 

[Coyote33]

No news yet?

 

[terraformer]

Nope. I checked earlier today.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The Massachusetts District is short at least one judge, so I expect the work load is pretty high. Our judge has a few other cases including the recent plea bargain by Whitey Bulger's girlfriend.

 

[terraformer]

We won. More details to follow.

 

[PaulD]

We won. More details to follow.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BigDaddyAl]

We won. More details to follow.

I'm typically reserved in my use of smileys, but I think this is an appropriate use of

 

[cekim]

Congrats!

 

[terraformer]

So it's a partial win in that we as Comm2A didn't maintain standing. That therefore removed H1Bs, political refugees and students from the pile, all classes I personally believe should be granted LTCs like citizens. Lets see how the state responds to those classes but you can bet that they won't give us anything without another suit.

 

[jar]

The case the judge cited in denying organizational standing was reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate decision declined to reach the issue of standing for SAF, but explicitly overturned the denial of standing for the individual plaintiff. It's waiting for judgement on motions on remand.

 

[PaulD]

..

 

[PaulD]

So it's a partial win in that we as Comm2A didn't maintain standing. That therefore removed H1Bs, political refugees and students from the pile, all classes I personally believe should be granted LTCs like citizens. Lets see how the state responds to those classes but you can bet that they won't give us anything without another suit.

Could you define "maintain standing" for us legal noobs?

So does this mean that green card holders are now able to get an LTC-A but not other classes of legal immigrants?

Also, does this have further implications for the gun rights situation in MA?

 

[terraformer]

The case the judge cited in denying organizational standing was reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate decision declined to reach the issue of standing for SAF, but explicitly overturned the denial of standing for the individual plaintiff. It's waiting for judgement on motions on remand.

Yeah, I am not worried about this. The analysis this judge did on citizenship issues is bar none one of the best I have seen. It explains why we had to wait so long.

 

[terraformer]

Could you define "maintain standing" for us legal noobs?

So does this mean that green card holders are now able to get an LTC-A but not other classes of legal immigrants?

Also, does this have further implications for the gun rights situation in MA?

Standing is the ability to show harm. As for who gets them, it appears it's limited to green card holders but that's not the final word on this. The analysis shows we win if we had H1Bs but the H1Bs and students we had were concerned about retaliation and deportation so they opted to not be involved. I can't say as though I blame them.

More later when we are done reading it and a lawyer can verify our understandings are correct. I don't want to give bad info.

 

[jar]

"And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held more broadly that extending fundamental rights to citizens but not to lawful permanent resident aliens would present state equal protection problems subject to strict scrutiny. Finch v. Commonwealth Health Ins. Connector Auth., 959 N.E.2d 970, 984 (Mass. 2012)."

Hoist, petard, some assembly required.

As you said above, the citizenship analysis is excellent. Also, I enjoyed: "In short, defendants have not sustained their burden of showing that the statute passes muster under any potentially applicable standard." and " "The defendants’ reading of Heller requires a considerable analytical strain. " The latter is probably as close as an article III judge gets to calling bullshit.

 

[jar]

Any tea leaves on whether the state will appeal? If they don't, does that free up some committed funds/counsel availability to move other cases forward?

 

[M1911]

"The defendants’ reading of Heller requires a considerable analytical strain. " The latter is probably as close as an article III judge gets to calling bullshit.

Definitely a slap at the defendants.

 

[Gray Peterson]

The case the judge cited in denying organizational standing was reversed and remanded on appeal. The appellate decision declined to reach the issue of standing for SAF, but explicitly overturned the denial of standing for the individual plaintiff. It's waiting for judgement on motions on remand.

Or C2A can file a 59(e) motion to amend.