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

Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
44,531
Likes
27,439
Remand is f***ing bullshit. The higher court should slap it down and end it. This is passing the buck, stall tactic bullshit.
It is also a fairly standard practice when precedent has changed since the ruling being appealed. For practical purposes, the choices were "remand" or "cert denied".
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
42,108
Likes
12,371
Location
Near Framingham
I'm saying the practice is bullshit. You don't need to hear the case to apply the new standard. Just issue a ruling.
Then SCOTUS would have to write rulings in all of those cases, which would significantly reduce the other cases that they can hear. This way, SCOTUS has provided the revised guidelines and the lower courts can take the time to write an updated ruling in accordance with those guidelines. If the updated ruling isn't in accordance with those guidelines, then one of the parties can appeal and SCOTUS can review.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
28,943
Likes
36,660
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
The ruling doesn't need to be a f***ing novel.

"Our decision in previous case XXXX has determined we side with XXXX."

Leave the damages to be determined by the lower court if needed but issue the f***ing ruling.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
10,007
Likes
12,561
Location
Taunton
The ruling doesn't need to be a f***ing novel.

"Our decision in previous case XXXX has determined we side with XXXX."

Leave the damages to be determined by the lower court if needed but issue the f***ing ruling.
Yes, it does need to be a novel.
If the SCOTUS isn't very clear in its opinions the lefty courts take every possible avenue to twist the meaning of the decision.
By letting the lower courts put out their arguments SCOTUS can then slap down the outrageous and strengthen the correct with much less effort
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
28,943
Likes
36,660
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
Yes, it does need to be a novel.
If the SCOTUS isn't very clear in its opinions the lefty courts take every possible avenue to twist the meaning of the decision.
By letting the lower courts put out their arguments SCOTUS can then slap down the outrageous and strengthen the correct with much less effort

You don't need to slap down the arguments if you just struck down the law with 2 sentences. Just add a 3rd sentence -> All judges, politicians and agents of the state who arrested, prosecuted and/or sentenced any citizen using this struck law are now no longer protected by QI and may be pursued in civil and criminal court for damages and violation of rights.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
10,007
Likes
12,561
Location
Taunton
You don't need to slap down the arguments if you just struck down the law with 2 sentences. Just add a 3rd sentence -> All judges, politicians and agents of the state who arrested, prosecuted and/or sentenced any citizen using this struck law are now no longer protected by QI and may be pursued in civil and criminal court for damages and violation of rights.
If you were a conservative judge needing protection from lefty nutcases bent on harming you or your family, would you do that?
No, you would punt just like they are.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438
Remand is f***ing bullshit. The higher court should slap it down and end it. This is passing the buck, stall tactic bullshit.

The district court is the trial court, appeals courts and SCOTUS usually take cases based on errors of law by the lower court.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438
Federal three judge appeals and en banc are also used bythe government when it does not like a lower court decision on gun issues.

Everyone appeals a district court lose, for the most part. It will be interesting if RI loses their mag limit case, will the appeal to the 1st circuit? I’m sure Massachusetts will lobby them hard to not appeal and risk ending the Massachusetts law.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,309
Likes
5,946
Location
My forest stronghold
Remand is f***ing bullshit. The higher court should slap it down and end it. This is passing the buck, stall tactic bullshit.
Look at it this way: SCOTUS is telling CA1 to go back and rethink the issue in light of Bruen. SCOTUS wants CA1 to do the heavy lifting and explain why Bruen is or is not dispositive. Bruen is not directly on-point WRT Morin's issue. That has to be worked out. CA1 could send it back to the District Court. It's not unheard of for cases like this to go up and down a couple of times.

SCOTUS is not (traditionally) in the busienss of saving every kitten in the animal shelter. They want to decided high level issues. Morin is Bruen adjacent, not on-point.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,889
Likes
9,531
What are you expecting? That the lower courts will review the GVR and rule on this in less than a week?
Was hoping before noon, to tell the truth. Give them 3 hours to read it, and 1 hour to mull it over and make a decision.


Everyone appeals a district court lose, for the most part. It will be interesting if RI loses their mag limit case, will the appeal to the 1st circuit? I’m sure Massachusetts will lobby them hard to not appeal and risk ending the Massachusetts law.

When you say "Massachusetts", who do you mean?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438
Was hoping before noon, to tell the truth. Give them 3 hours to read it, and 1 hour to mull it over and make a decision.




When you say "Massachusetts", who do you mean?

Healy, the next AG , etc. at times, when a city or state loses a gun control case there is pressure from other cities and states not to appeal especially to SCOTUS. The lower court decision is only for the district or circuit of that court, so it won’t affect other places gun laws. If RI loses in district court, it would only end mag limits in RI. If they appealed to the 1st circuit it would affect RI, MA, NH, ME, PR
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,889
Likes
9,531
Healy, the next AG , etc. at times, when a city or state loses a gun control case there is pressure from other cities and states not to appeal especially to SCOTUS. The lower court decision is only for the district or circuit of that court, so it won’t affect other places gun laws. If RI loses in district court, it would only end mag limits in RI. If they appealed to the 1st circuit it would affect RI, MA, NH, ME, PR
I understand (basically) the what. It was the who I was interested in. So, it is the AG that would lobby other state's courts hard? Not the governor?
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
10,320
Likes
9,757
I understand (basically) the what. It was the who I was interested in. So, it is the AG that would lobby other state's courts hard? Not the governor?
I don't think this is an official process, it's more like one politician calling another. So it could be anyone or many. So Healey for sure, Baker probably not worth it to him either way.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,470
Likes
9,438
I don't think this is an official process, it's more like one politician calling another. So it could be anyone or many. So Healey for sure, Baker probably not worth it to him either way.

Baker is gone in 2 months, the RI case won’t be in the 1st circuit until at least next summer
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
687
Likes
924
This case is not about felonies. I should have made that clear earlier.

What Morin is about is the MA lifetime ban on someone convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor involving a firearms or ammunition for which a prison term may be imposed.

Morin's situation is he was convicted (pled out, I think) of a gun misdemeanor in DC that has a theoretical prison possibility. Comm2A is arguing it is a violation of his rights to impose a lifetime MA ban under these circumstances.

Unfortunately, this has no bearing on the MA misdafelony situation but is widely applicable to persons with non-MA minor gun cases. The "prison term may be imposed" is misleading as to the severity of the underlying crime as there are offenses where this possibility is on the books for an offense but only very rarely if ever imposed.

An excellent example is discharge of a firearm within 500ft of an occupied dwelling without consent of the persons occupying said dwellings. The penalty is up to a $100 fine or up too 3 months in stir. Since it involves firearms, and has possible jail/prison time, it is a MA lifetime DQ. This is particularly disturbing given the recent MA SJC (or SMC) decision that this is a per-se offense not requiring any intent for conviction as the penalty is so minor. The court made no mention of, and apparently did not consider, lifetime MA deprivation of a civil right as part of the penalty - it was apparently ignored because it did not fit the agenda of the decision they wanted to issue.

As to the other issues - one sure route to failure in a gun rights case is to make it two broad, as one is just giving the court many hooks on which to hang an adverse decision. Some of the issues of which you speak are being litigated.

The Boston range test faces an additional litigation obstacle - stare decisis. This was already unfavorably decided in MacNutt vs. Police Commissioner of Boston, although that case did succeed in eliminating the charge for that test.
If they could pull it off, they would ban all guns, and confiscate them. That is not politically possible yet, so they look for any reason to infringe. Guy made a stupid mistake. Prohibited person. One person disarmed forever. 80 million more to go.

That’s why they push red flag laws, specific weapon bans, bump stock bans. Anything to catch you, and make you into a prohibited person.
 

BigGreen2000

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
358
Likes
326
Location
The 413
If they could pull it off, they would ban all guns, and confiscate them. That is not politically possible yet, so they look for any reason to infringe. Guy made a stupid mistake. Prohibited person. One person disarmed forever. 80 million more to go.

That’s why they push red flag laws, specific weapon bans, bump stock bans. Anything to catch you, and make you into a prohibited person.

Stalin: "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Targeting the political opponent comes first; cooking up an accusation comes second. Just look at Gen. Flynn and the perjury trap .gov set for him.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,889
Likes
9,531
A number of people would lobby the RI AG to not appeal.
Has this happened?

Baker is gone in 2 months, the RI case won’t be in the 1st circuit until at least next summer
Baker is now gone.

So where in the process is this? Did the G, V, R happen yet? Does this get formally announced somewhere? If so, was it? Haven't seen anything here, or I missed it.
 

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
8,952
Likes
16,277
Location
People's Republik
Has this happened?
In other cases, yes. This one hasn't gotten that far.
So where in the process is this?
The request for injunction was denied. The case still needs to be heard. Currently, RI residents are expected to rid the state of their standard capacity magazines.
Did the G, V, R happen yet?
Not even close to there yet. First the case needs to be tried and decided. Then it would need to be appealed by whoever lost... etc.

I just realized you might be referring to Morin v Lyver here... here's the COMM2A page tracking the case:
Does this get formally announced somewhere?
I mean, there'll be court documents. That's about as formal as it gets. Have you been tracking the RI courts? Maybe the website of the lawyers bringing the case? Or local newspapers?
If so, was it? Haven't seen anything here, or I missed it.
there are multiple threads here about the RI magazine ban. E.G.:

 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,889
Likes
9,531
I just realized you might be referring to Morin v Lyver here... here's the COMM2A page tracking the case:
The last mention of anything was in 2020.
 
Top Bottom