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

Dozer 23 said:
Difficulty? I was on found guilty of discharging a firearm.
Not guilty of all other charges.
Click to expand...
There are three sentences there. The first and last are technically fragments, but at least their meanings are reasonably clear. The middle, I can't say the same of.

It sounds like your bet bet is to talk to a lawyer who specializes in MA firearms law.
 
42! said:
I'd love to hear a lawyers interpretation of this. It seems to limit the ruling to the one specific case and in no way affect the law or whether the law itself is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Several youtube lawyers go over this in detail - it's not a slam dunk but is informative in similar cases
 
pastera said:
Several youtube lawyers go over this in detail - it's not a slam dunk but is informative in similar cases
Click to expand...
Several youtube lawyers are nothing but clickbait BS, was kind of looking for something more focused on reality and not clicks. Youtube lawyers go screaming major victory whenever there is a temp injunction that is ultimately meaningless.

ETA a search of youtube for "Morin v Lyver" get's nothing newer than 7 month ago and that was an interview of Scrivner on RapidFireRadio. Relying on youtube as a news source, ya right.
 
Last edited:
42! said:
I'd love to hear a lawyers interpretation of this. It seems to limit the ruling to the one specific case and in no way affect the law or whether the law itself is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that is the case. Basically all three parties unanimously consented to this one situation as needing to be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Obviously this is a win for the plaintiff and the defendants went with it because it avoids setting any wider precedent?
 
42! said:
Several youtube lawyers are nothing but clickbait BS, was kind of looking for something more focused on reality and not clicks. Youtube lawyers go screaming major victory whenever there is a temp injunction that is ultimately meaningless.

ETA a search of youtube for "Morin v Lyver" get's nothing newer than 7 month ago and that was an interview of Scrivner on RapidFireRadio. Relying on youtube as a news source, ya right.
Click to expand...
I'd have to go back and search for the video
I agree that the click bait has gotten overwhelming - for some reason they believe they need to put out a video every day even when no real events have occurred.

My take is that the video's are a good addition to actually reading (or skimming) the case documents on your own. Having a lawyers view on what I've read as a layperson is helpfulto understand some of the legal minutiae.
 
shakti said:
Yes, I believe that is the case. Basically all three parties unanimously consented to this one situation as needing to be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Obviously this is a win for the plaintiff and the defendants went with it because it avoids setting any wider precedent?
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking, good for the plaintiff but ultimately meaningless as to the unconstitutionality of the law.
I'm sure the youtube clickbait lawyers will be screaming what a great victory this is.....Bull Shit.
 
42! said:
That's what I was thinking, good for the plaintiff but ultimately meaningless as to the unconstitutionality of the law.
I'm sure the youtube clickbait lawyers will be screaming what a great victory this is.....Bull Shit.
Click to expand...
The victory in As Applied wins is that they build case law that is informative to other cases.
Each small win helps get to the point where we can get a facial challenge before SCOTUS in order to get clear direction that non-violent convictions cannot be used to extinguish an enumerated right.
For Morin, the conviction should be reversed and remanded after Bruen - since there was no legal method to comply with for carrying in public he should not have been arrested for voluntarily trying to comply with a museum's trespass rules (while you have the right to carry, private entities have the right to exclude you while you are carrying).
 
Coyote33 said:
Same here.

Is this thing over, or is there still something happening?

Did he ever get a license and buy himself some guns? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Holding pattern.

The parties agreed that he should get a permit to purchase.

The agreement has not (as far as I am aware) been executed yet.
 
Darksideblues42 said:
Holding pattern.

The parties agreed that he should get a permit to purchase.

The agreement has not (as far as I am aware) been executed yet.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this effectively confirm that all they need to comply with 2a is issue a PtP, thus allowing both an LTC and FID to be denied without being able to claim a 2a violation because you have not exhausted your options and now they have in fact issue at least one PtP.

Sounds like a lose.
 
42! said:
Doesn't this effectively confirm that all they need to comply with 2a is issue a PtP, thus allowing both an LTC and FID to be denied without being able to claim a 2a violation because you have not exhausted your options and now they have in fact issue at least one PtP.

Sounds like a lose.
Click to expand...
Until he finds that the PtP is not very useful if FFLs won't accept it
 
pastera said:
Until he finds that the PtP is not very useful if FFLs won't accept it
Click to expand...
What an FFL will do doesn't matter, that's a private business decision. All that matters is what the State law allows.
 
42! said:
Doesn't this effectively confirm that all they need to comply with 2a is issue a PtP, thus allowing both an LTC and FID to be denied without being able to claim a 2a violation because you have not exhausted your options and now they have in fact issue at least one PtP.

Sounds like a lose.
Click to expand...
Unsure.

This is what I remember from the mid-1970s. It may or may not be factual as I never had reason to research it.

I was told that a PtP allowed someone with an FID to buy a handgun and have it delivered to their home but they couldn't take the gun out of the home unless they obtained a LTC. From what I was told you could not possess the handgun with ONLY the PtP.

The state does a very good job of bamboozling judges in MA to think that something is OK/legal when it isn't or conversely that something is illegal when it isn't.
 
pastera said:
Agree but if he can't find an FFL that's comfortable with selling with only a FID.
Click to expand...
I figure they can find one, and that's all it takes. Now that one may be a cop with a part time shop in the middle of nowhere western MA, and a friend of the AG, and they charge $1000 for a transfer, but they will find one.

The game is rigged in their favor.
 
42! said:
What an FFL will do doesn't matter, that's a private business decision. All that matters is what the State law allows.
Click to expand...
It does matter because if no dealer will take a PTP the state's going to have to explicitly "legalize" or anoint it via EOPS.
 
42! said:
I figure they can find one, and that's all it takes. Now that one may be a cop with a part time shop in the middle of nowhere western MA, and a friend of the AG, and they charge $1000 for a transfer, but they will find one.

The game is rigged in their favor.
Click to expand...
And all of that horseshit could be brought back into court as infringements. My guess is eops will just start allowing it again and issue a memo or edict.....

ETA: it's not like EOPS et al are not familiar with this kinda thing. If "someone" tells them to do it it will just happen...
 

Similar threads

I Testified Against the ATF
Replies
6
Views
489
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
Ammo in house fire - again
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
Fixxah
Fixxah
Harvard Poll: 6 in 10 Voters Say Owning a Gun is a Necessary Part of Self-Defense Against Crime
Replies
8
Views
220
Lank
Lank
Weapons case against Norton man dismissed, appeal filed over suspension of gun license
Replies
26
Views
768
usp45ct
usp45ct
Mistrial declared in federal case against former Louisville cop over Breonna Taylor raid
Replies
0
Views
106
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom