• 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.

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
5,999
We are aware of the changing standard and refusal of the courts to accept it, and are always on the lookout for good cases. One of the problems is plaintiff selection. It's hard to get the court to not factor in the "likeability" of the plaintiff in such cases, particularly with the de-facto policy of viewing LTC appeals as a waste of time. The problem with many potential plaintiffs is they have "unprovable in a court of law but believable dirt" - like a CWOF disposition or an expired 209A.
Nice turn to the argument. But this reinforces the manner in which you could go after the additional requirements being a large number of plaintiffs and PDs. It eliminates their ability to defame one plaintiff and use that as a reason to deny the case.

As for suitability, "unprovable in a court of law but believable dirt"along with hearsay being admissible, virtually guarantees that a person that meets your requirements as a potential plaintiff that could take down suitability simply does not exist. Its a unicorn. Why not own up to it that it's just not going to happen, at least not by Comm2a. And let some other organization take the lead.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,829
Likes
17,677
Nice turn to the argument. But this reinforces the manner in which you could go after the additional requirements being a large number of plaintiffs and PDs. It eliminates their ability to defame one plaintiff and use that as a reason to deny the case.

As for suitability, "unprovable in a court of law but believable dirt"along with hearsay being admissible, virtually guarantees that a person that meets your requirements as a potential plaintiff that could take down suitability simply does not exist. Its a unicorn. Why not own up to it that it's just not going to happen, at least not by Comm2a. And let some other organization take the lead.
We do occasionally find unicorns. When we brought the Chardin case (use of sealed juvenile records) we had a diverse plaintiff with a gun carry charge from age 14 who had gone on to a 100% law abiding adult life, successful career, and PhD. Even with all that, we lost and were denied cert by SCOTUS. Scrivener's brief was a masterpiece, so it was not bad lawyering.

As to the non-citizen LTC case - we had an honorably discharged veteran of the UK armed forces veteran who is a US citizen plus a high profile MD who lists tumor pathology textbooks to his credit. We won that case, and were fortunate to have baggageless plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs for the MJ case were baggage free, having nothing but minor heathen devil weed convictions in their record. We won, and I am not certain the outcome would have been the same if we used EBT recipients with a string of CWOFs and expired 209As.

The Glock case had baggageless plaintiffs (lead plaintiff was retired LEO) but we lost that based on Judge Kennedy concluding "all AGs arguments accepted as fact;; all plaintiffs arguments rejected; no need for a trial or testimony; summary judgment granted in favor of AG".

An example of risk when tweaking the tiger's tail. Years ago, the nomenclature on an LTC was "reason for issuance". One court (Ipswitch) found that this was a reason, not a restriction. GOAL demanded the state clarify what reason met. It doesn't take a tactical genius to predict the outcome - the state immediately changed "reason for issuance" to "restriction" on LTCs, removing any argument a gun owner had that his/her target license covered defensive carry. A proper a-prior risk analysis would have factored in this possible outcome and perhaps led to a different decision. This is the sort of thing that can happen if we bring legally correct, but doomed, cases.

Another example - I am a former NY state resident and have been carry licensed it two different NY counties. I'm not only baggage free, but even have proof two different county judges found me suitable. So, I get *the* top gun lawyer in the country to take my case on the residency required issue. (If you have to ask who, look at the bottom of the Heller brief). Research was done, a favorable county was selected (the one I grew up in and had been licensed in from 1983 onwards until I moved to the DPRM), information was provided. Then, it was discovered a pro-se plaintiff in another county had filed a sufficiently similar case in a less favorable court on the same issue. If this tactically bad move had not been done by an amateur with an inflated opinion of his abilities, there is a decent chance we would have an NES thread with people discussing they NY licensing experience. (this was NYS except for NYC which is a separate licensing jurisdiction).

The reality of bringing winning cases is a lot more complex than simply following "you should do this". And Comm2A has no authority over other parties bringing cases, so it is not a matter of us "letting someone else take the lead". We (Comm2a) is not in charge of other orgs and plaintiffs.

We evaluate the benefits and risks of each case. If we are morally and legally right, we have to weigh our opinion of the law against what the court is likely to decide and also consider the possible consequences of an adverse decision that not only goes against but bars re-litigation based on re judicata and/or a precedent setting decision.

Who would have imagined a court would not find that bonded warehouse storage was conceptually the same as an involuntary tow? It was convoluted logic (since the police deal with the vendor, the person who pays is not the customer and has no rights that need protecting). That is the kind of thinking we are up against.

A current problem in MA is that you have a right to own a handgun in your home, but not a right to get the license allowing you to do so. Courts in NY have held that extreme fees to exercise a right are not unreasonable, so it is not bringing a case about what is right but one so narrow the court cannot dance around the issue. We generally face a direct contradiction between desired social policy (in the mind of the court) and what the law requires, so any elasticity will be used against us.

With all due respect, one's ability to offer meaningful commentary on what cases should be brought requires a background in reading actual filings and decisions of cases that have went our way, and not, to see what one can expect from MA and First Circuit federal district couts.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,486
Likes
4,758
Got a tweet from Comm2A. Here it is:

Comm2A has filed a reply brief in Morin v. Lyver. While the legal issues are not sexy, they are essential to address the absurdity of a lifetime ban for misunderstanding the scope of coverage granted by the MA license to carry.

Check out the docs at

Here's the original tweet:
View: https://twitter.com/Comm2A/status/1353906457926922241?s=20
 

fshalor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
4,302
Likes
3,121
Location
Portland, ME
He had a MA LTC for years. About 13 years ago, he drove down to DC with a .380 on his person, thinking his MA LTC covered him anywhere.

He saw a "No Guns Allowed" sign at a museum and asked at the desk where he could check his handgun. The desk called the US Park Police, who arrested him. He pled to misdemeanor possession of a firearm in DC and misdemeanor possession of an unregistered gun in DC. Both are sub-one-year maximum confinement for a first offense, and he got off with suspended / probation / community service. Ever since, he's been denied a renewal of the LTC as he has a gun-related conviction.
Good summary. Borders matter. This should have been a FOPA 1 and Done.

I've been watching this case, as any time one drives through CA, NY, VT, CT, RI, MA, NJ, Chicago, a whole f ton of towns around the country, and Dc... This case may be the thing which hangs or frees you.

Maybe on federal lands, parks, and museums. Too.

Literally, I have not gone to Acadia as a result of this case being undetermined.
 

HARRYM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
3,026
Likes
4,158
Location
Massachusetts/NH
I would like it if COMM2A had official memberships, as well as the donation ability. I donate but would love to be an official COMM2A Member, a 2A Soldier if you will.
 

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
6,989
Likes
6,157
Location
North of Boston
I would like it if COMM2A had official memberships, as well as the donation ability. I donate but would love to be an official COMM2A Member, a 2A Soldier if you will.

[wave][rockon] Matt

The first page of this thread may help.

Comm2a now has "members" rather than "donors" or "supporters".

As a practical matter, this makes no difference to the individual member. We did this because having "members" puts us in a strong position to argue that we have standing in the cases we bring. Until now, the dismissal of Comm2A as a plaintiff due to lack of standing has been a pretty much standard part of the preliminaries.
 
Last edited:

fshalor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
4,302
Likes
3,121
Location
Portland, ME
FOPA does not cover on ones person carry, as was the case in the underlying offense.
Logically, his destination was the check-in counter at the museum.

How was he supposed to legally transit to that destination while exercising his civil right in transit?

Yes, I'm picking a nit. It is an important one.

People who work in gun-free properties or schools, or medical/teaching facilities which mascaraed as schools face this delima every day.

I consider a litmus test for any law to be simple. Does a person attempting to follow said law have to go through logical summersaults in order to process the edict?

How much different would this case be, if the gentleman was arrested for printing while at a gas station in DC because his son was car sick, or he had to fill up the minivan, or his wife needed to stop while breastfeeding?
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,829
Likes
17,677
Logically, his destination was the check-in counter at the museum.
FOPA requires one be legal at the origin and destination and is clearly intended to cover transport through, not visits within, prohibited locations. There are "edge cases" - unexpected stops for mechanical breakdown; an unplanned hotel night because one is too tired to continue driving safely; and even stopping for dinner or a shit. But, visiting a museum and taking a carried gun out to "Temporarily check it" at a prohibited location is beyond a stretch for an FOPA86 defense.
How much different would this case be, if the gentleman was arrested for printing while at a gas station in DC because his son was car sick, or he had to fill up the minivan, or his wife needed to stop while breastfeeding?
You are clearly unfamiliar with FOPA. It covers cased transport, not carry on one's person. There would be an FOPA argument if the gun was found unloaded in a case not accessible to the driver while gassing or debresting milk. And it is sexist to assume it is not the gun carrier who had to breastfeed.

I suggest you read it in detail before offering more erroneous conclusions.

There is a reason FOPA86 was not used as a defense in this case - because said argument has no legal merit.
 

fshalor

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
4,302
Likes
3,121
Location
Portland, ME
FOPA requires one be legal at the origin and destination and is clearly intended to cover transport through, not visits within, prohibited locations. There are "edge cases" - unexpected stops for mechanical breakdown; an unplanned hotel night because one is too tired to continue driving safely; and even stopping for dinner or a shit. But, visiting a museum and taking a carried gun out to "Temporarily check it" at a prohibited location is beyond a stretch for an FOPA86 defense.

You are clearly unfamiliar with FOPA. It covers cased transport, not carry on one's person. There would be an FOPA argument if the gun was found unloaded in a case not accessible to the driver while gassing or debresting milk. And it is sexist to assume it is not the gun carrier who had to breastfeed.

I suggest you read it in detail before offering more erroneous conclusions.

There is a reason FOPA86 was not used as a defense in this case - because said argument has no legal merit.
I am quite familiar with FOPA. I used the word "should" clearly here. Not "does, or protects".

Perhaps "ought to have" would be a better phrase for me to have used than "should".

The point I'm trying to make is the description of the FOPA 86 indicates that it provides firearm owners protection for passage.


If you are a layperson, and read that single highlighted contextual summary... It is trivial to believe that "should" I used above.

Thanks to the work of you guys, we know it's not. There are broad mistakes in the original writing which fail to address common daily circumstances where a law abiding person has no path to take to maintain their right and their legality at the same time.

Topic for another discussion, but I have felt from the first time that I read FOPA and began carrying a copy around in my glove box, that this coverage would be an ideal attack surface.

(For conversations with lawmakers and voters. )
 

HARRYM

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
3,026
Likes
4,158
Location
Massachusetts/NH
[wave][rockon] Matt

The first page of this thread may help.
Granted I ain't the best computer person in the world but I went to the site. Didn't see anything calling out memberships. I did find recurring donations so I did $10 every month for $120 yr.
 

kalash

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
9,782
Likes
8,743
I am quite familiar with FOPA. I used the word "should" clearly here. Not "does, or protects".

Perhaps "ought to have" would be a better phrase for me to have used than "should".

The point I'm trying to make is the description of the FOPA 86 indicates that it provides firearm owners protection for passage.


If you are a layperson, and read that single highlighted contextual summary... It is trivial to believe that "should" I used above.
It's hardly relevant what you wish the law *should* have been. What actually matters is what the law *is*. Thus, this post:
Logically, his destination was the check-in counter at the museum.

How was he supposed to legally transit to that destination while exercising his civil right in transit?
...is irrelevant because FOPA does NOT cover an MA resident going to a museum in DC.

"Should" you be allowed to carry anywhere you want? Sure. But you're not.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,917
Likes
2,618
Granted I ain't the best computer person in the world but I went to the site. Didn't see anything calling out memberships. I did find recurring donations so I did $10 every month for $120 yr.
Right, we don't "sell" memberships. We do have them for anyone who is a plaintiff and other special circumstances. There is a simple reason for this, w/ membership comes responsibility to provide something of value for that membership and we have traditionally been short staffed for that kind of commitment. This will hopefully change over time, but for right now we need to keep it as simple as possible to maximize the revenue. And we do a real good job of maximizing the revenue. We appreciate your support and look for more to come from us soon.
 
Top Bottom