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

[Waher]

This is the kind of shit that should get judges impeached if we still had a functioning government.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

As @Knuckle Dragger called back in June, the First Circuit made it official today.

In short, they went so far as to say that even though Morin was denied an LTC, obtained an FID, but was denied a Permit to Purchase (PTP) because he was not qualified for an LTC, he had not exhausted the potential of obtaining a firearm through the Inheritance process, so he lacked standing.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1280P-01A.pdf

Talk about legal jackassery.

My call back in June could hardly be call prescient. I am, however, stunned that they took this creative standing cop-out without reaching the merits. They could easily have set an unreasonably high bar for what constitutes 'law abiding' and affirmed the district court on that. This is just insane.

 

[Dadstoys]

Would I be correct this would be a slam dunk on appeal considering the Judge appears to be out of his mind ?

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Would I be correct this would be a slam dunk on appeal considering the Judge appears to be out of his mind ?

The ruling is from the 1st Circuit before a 3-judge panel. There is no further right of appeal, but the 1st circuit could grant an en banc rehearing or the Supreme Court could take the case.

The upcoming Corlett decision may provide grounds to reverse and remand.

 

[Coyote33]

Far from it. They know the result they want; that making a bad decision is done so at no personal or career risk; and in many cases their position stands. Just ask "What did the first circuit lose by accepting the community caretaker argument in the RI case?". The answer is noting.

It takes a lot of integrity for a judge to rule against what (s)he desires as social policy when that is where the law leads. Few persons have that level of intellectual honesty and integrity.

In Draper v. Healy (Glock loaded chamber indicator case) the result-oriented court went so far as to deny Comm2a the ability to argue the "effectiveness" of the existing loaded chamber indicator in court. If you view this through the lens of intelligence, it looks like a stupid action on the part of the court not to allow all facts to be present. If instead you evaluate it from the perspective of "Did the ruling justice get the outcome he wanted and did it stick", the answer is yes.

So, they are going for a particular result, not "justice"? Would it be an accurate statement to say these "justices" do not support "justice"?

Keep in mind, Dr. Morin is no spring chicken.

He was 19 when this started. (kidding)

 

[Darksideblues42]

My call back in June could hardly be call prescient. I am, however, stunned that they took this creative standing cop-out without reaching the merits. They could easily have set an unreasonably high bar for what constitutes 'law abiding' and affirmed the district court on that. This is just insane.

This was their reasoning, and it seems like they are saying he is not burdened because there is not a total prohibition, so Morin cannot argue he is banned, so he needs to present a new argument.



In pointing out this shift in how Morin describes the restrictions at issue on appeal in arguing for more intensive scrutiny compared to how he described them below in arguing for such demanding review, we do not mean to suggest that there is no argument to be made that the severe though (if Massachusetts is right about how the Commonwealth treats the inheritance of a handgun) not total restriction on acquisition of a handgun for home use may heavily burden the core right that Heller recognized. Nor do we mean to suggest that there is not an argument to be made that insofar as those restrictions have that effect, they warrant more than intermediate scrutiny even when they are applied to someone who, like Morin, has more-than-decade-old misdemeanor firearms-related convictions. But, here, Morin cannot be said to have made any such argument on appeal for applying that more demanding form of review to the restrictions at issue. Given the way that he has described on appeal the "ban" that he contends that those restrictions impose on him, no such argument has been advanced to us. Thus, we must affirm the grant of summary judgment against him because the only ground that he has given for overturning it rests on a description of the restrictions' effect on his conduct that is clearly mistaken insofar as it is developed at all.

(Footnote 8) The Commonwealth further contends that there is not even a ban on Morin's right to obtain a handgun, as he may acquire one through inheritance so long as he has an FID Card. Morin at no point addresses that contention.

 

[Coyote33]

This was their reasoning, and it seems like they are saying he is not burdened because there is not a total prohibition, so Morin cannot argue he is banned, so he needs to present a new argument.

Can he now "try to inherit" and fail, and then re-apply? Could he somehow prove he was unable to previously?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This was their reasoning, and it seems like they are saying he is not burdened because there is not a total prohibition, so Morin cannot argue he is banned, so he needs to present a new argument.



In pointing out this shift in how Morin describes the restrictions at issue on appeal in arguing for more intensive scrutiny compared to how he described them below in arguing for such demanding review, we do not mean to suggest that there is no argument to be made that the severe though (if Massachusetts is right about how the Commonwealth treats the inheritance of a handgun) not total restriction on acquisition of a handgun for home use may heavily burden the core right that Heller recognized. Nor do we mean to suggest that there is not an argument to be made that insofar as those restrictions have that effect, they warrant more than intermediate scrutiny even when they are applied to someone who, like Morin, has more-than-decade-old misdemeanor firearms-related convictions. But, here, Morin cannot be said to have made any such argument on appeal for applying that more demanding form of review to the restrictions at issue. Given the way that he has described on appeal the "ban" that he contends that those restrictions impose on him, no such argument has been advanced to us. Thus, we must affirm the grant of summary judgment against him because the only ground that he has given for overturning it rests on a description of the restrictions' effect on his conduct that is clearly mistaken insofar as it is developed at all.

(Footnote 8) The Commonwealth further contends that there is not even a ban on Morin's right to obtain a handgun, as he may acquire one through inheritance so long as he has an FID Card. Morin at no point addresses that contention.

Morin certainly is banned. His conviction in DC renders him statutorily ineligible for a MA LTC, and inheriting a gun is not a wallhack around that. The argument that he can possess in the home on an FID is in error, however, could be the basis for an entrapment by estoppel defense as the state has represented an FID is sufficient.

But, just try explaining "The FID you did not suspend/revoke covers possession of a handgun in the home so your confiscation order is unlawful".

Now that would be a fun case - find someone who had their LTC revoked, continued to have an FID, and argued the state deprived them of their constitutional since, according the AG as expressed in another trial, could legally continue to possess the handgun.

So, they are going for a particular result, not "justice"? Would it be an accurate statement to say these "justices" do not support "justice"?

The commonly used term is "results oriented judiciary".

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Would I be correct this would be a slam dunk on appeal considering the Judge appears to be out of his mind ?

I'm not sure how you're word a further appeal with "...the Judge appears to be out of his mind". One next step would be petition for a rehearing en banc. That would be denied, so we probalby won't bother. The real next step would be a SCOTUS petition. But if the court grants cert, I'm guessing it would likely just be on the standing question which would send it back down for consideration of the merits.

Can he now "try to inherit" and fail, and then re-apply? Could he somehow prove he was unable to previously?

He can't fail an inheritance. He just needs someone to bequeath him a firearms and then die. I'm sure the judges of the First Circuit don't see that as an undue burden. Sounds simple enough.

 

[42!]

Pursuing inheritance sounds a lot like killing someone to get their gun. But when he gets this thrown out they will just move on to the next reason, he could always just build a gun himself.

This is a disgusting perversion of our legal system. The Judges goal, as has been said, is to deny him and come up with some BS reason, not Justice. Even if this eventually makes it to SCOTUS and Justice is served, think if this was just your average Joe, he would never be able to afford the legal costs. There are plenty of people out there that MA has denied their right but they lack the funds for a SCOTUS fight and clearly pushing it that far is what the lower courts are doing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If anyone knows of a person who:

• Had their LTC revoked or suspended
• Did not have their FID revoked
• Went on record as stating "The AG has determined that an FID allows possession in the home. You are confiscating guns I still have the legal right to possess"
• Did not do anything stupid (like defy the confiscation order, try to explain the 2A to cops, etc.)
• Is not suspected of an offense that would make them an offensive plaintiff

Please contact Comm2A. I would love to have the team bring a case based on "The AG has ruled, via testimony in Moyer, that an FID covers a handgun in the home".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, while we're at it:

Looking for someone who has had a gun taken by the Boston PD under non-suspicious circumstances - for example, LTC holder in a car accident or has a heart attack and the responding officer takes the gun for safekeeping.

The Boston PD generally responds to return requests with "we run ballistics on all guns before they are returned". The case would be based on this constituting a warrantless search.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

He can't fail an inheritance. He just needs someone to bequeath him a firearms and then die. I'm sure the judges of the First Circuit don't see that as an undue burden. Sounds simple enough.

Do we have any people sympathetic to the cause in hospice or nursing homes that could be persuaded to help out here

 

[Coyote33]

he could always just build a gun himself

THERE is a new angle!

 

[Amputee Marksman]

 

[Coyote33]

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

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

Morin v. Lyver - Commonwealth Second Amendment

Challenge to the lifetime ban on the issuance of a License to Carry to anyone convicted of a minor, non-violent misdemeanor if the offense involves a weapon or ammunition and where a term of imprisonment may be imposed. United States District Court — District of Massachusetts (Worcester) Filed...

comm2a.org

Here's the original tweet:

View: https://twitter.com/Comm2A/status/1353906457926922241?s=20

As @Knuckle Dragger called back in June, the First Circuit made it official today.

In short, they went so far as to say that even though Morin was denied an LTC, obtained an FID, but was denied a Permit to Purchase (PTP) because he was not qualified for an LTC, he had not exhausted the potential of obtaining a firearm through the Inheritance process, so he lacked standing.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1280P-01A.pdf

Talk about legal jackassery.

The ruling is from the 1st Circuit before a 3-judge panel. There is no further right of appeal, but the 1st circuit could grant an en banc rehearing or the Supreme Court could take the case.

The upcoming Corlett decision may provide grounds to reverse and remand.

If anyone knows of a person who:

• Had their LTC revoked or suspended
• Did not have their FID revoked
• Went on record as stating "The AG has determined that an FID allows possession in the home. You are confiscating guns I still have the legal right to possess"
• Did not do anything stupid (like defy the confiscation order, try to explain the 2A to cops, etc.)
• Is not suspected of an offense that would make them an offensive plaintiff

Please contact Comm2A. I would love to have the team bring a case based on "The AG has ruled, via testimony in Moyer, that an FID covers a handgun in the home".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, while we're at it:

Looking for someone who has had a gun taken by the Boston PD under non-suspicious circumstances - for example, LTC holder in a car accident or has a heart attack and the responding officer takes the gun for safekeeping.

The Boston PD generally responds to return requests with "we run ballistics on all guns before they are returned". The case would be based on this constituting a warrantless search.

So, where to from here on this one?

 

[terraformer]

Comm2a filed a cert petition which won't be evaluated until next term.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Mass asking for more time?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1160/229273/20220630174452556_Second%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20on%20BIO_Morin%20v_%20Lyver.pdf

 

[moojpg2]

Maura must be shaking in her boots now lol

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Mass asking for more time?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1160/229273/20220630174452556_Second%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20on%20BIO_Morin%20v_%20Lyver.pdf

FYI That petition for cert was/is a Comm2A project.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Mass asking for more time?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1160/229273/20220630174452556_Second%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20on%20BIO_Morin%20v_%20Lyver.pdf

That's nothing out of the ordinary.....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That's nothing out of the ordinary.....

Especially with new information they have to respond to.

 

[Coyote33]

Just because they request it does not necessarily mean they GET it, does it? Hasn't this gone on long enough?

 

[Mesatchornug]

Just because they request it does not necessarily mean they GET it, does it? Hasn't this gone on long enough?

No, it doesn't. But the state will always give itself more time if allowed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No, it doesn't. But the state will always give itself more time if allowed.

It is also reasonable for a party in a case (even one just filing an Amicus) to be given more time when the rules of the game have suddenly changed.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Mass asking for more time?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1160/229273/20220630174452556_Second%20Motion%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20on%20BIO_Morin%20v_%20Lyver.pdf

"Can you give us 10 days to come up with some better bullshit argument? In fact, can we meet in your offices to come up with a bullshit argument that you'll agree with so we can maintain the status quo? I've got it. We'll use direct quotes from the SC ruling but then explain they mean EXACTLY the opposite of what they plainly say. That always gets a billion nods from CNN. It'll work!"

 

[hillman]

"Can you give us 10 days to come up with some better bullshit argument? In fact, can we meet in your offices to come up with a bullshit argument that you'll agree with so we can maintain the status quo? I've got it. We'll use direct quotes from the SC ruling but then explain they mean EXACTLY the opposite of what they plainly say. That always gets a billion nods from CNN. It'll work!"

"I find your lack of faith disturbing" - D. Vader

 

[Coyote33]

So, what is new here?

 

[Bladerunner]

So, what is new here?

This is Morin.

 

[Drix]

So, what is new here?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1160/230546/20220721120342512_21-1160%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Brief has been published.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1160/230546/20220721120342512_21-1160%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Brief has been published.

Here's this legal fiction that just keep popping up (permit to purchase):

"In order to purchase a firearm, someone with a firearm identification card must also obtain a “permit to purchase” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131A. See id. §§ 129C, 131E(b). And the eligibility criteria for obtaining a permit to purchase match the eligibility criteria for obtaining a license to carry under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131. See id. § 131A (“A licensing authority under [§ 131], upon the application of a person qualified to be granted a license thereunder by such authority, may grant to such a person … a permit to purchase.”)."

How can lawyers like this get away with lying in court especially to a judge?