Chevy 2 65
NES Member
-
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 Amicus in Gun Seizure Case
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
AHM
NES Member
slipknot
NES Member
Rob, page 8 of the brief states " The first statute requiring a license to possess any time of firearm in the home or business was enacted in 1968."
I think you meant kind instead of "time".
I hope the case goes well.
I think you meant kind instead of "time".
I hope the case goes well.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Court is in session the live stream is here: Suffolk Law School in Boston - Suffolk University
On now
On now
BUMP. Thank you for that link.
The "appeal pending" is maddening!
Mass Appellate Courts - Public Case Information
In case you missed it, (like maybe you had to work), the video is up: Suffolk Law School in Boston - Suffolk University
I haven't seen it yet, but I'd be interested in what folks think.
I haven't seen it yet, but I'd be interested in what folks think.
n1oty
NES Member
IANAL, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a few times (for whatever it's worth). The impressions I got after watching the arguments:
1. This guy's lawyer was not very articulate and he seemed a bit "disjointed" at times. He definitely lost points on his presentation.
2. The Justice's seem to have little sympathy for the defendant "because gunz". Everyone seemed comfortable claiming this defendant/appellant was in fact guilty of domestic violence. That troubled me significantly because my understanding is that the record showed only a report from the wife's doctor and that "information" was never corroborated by anybody. They just took the report as gospel and revoked the defendants LTC.
3. The Justice's were clearly honing in on 1A and 4A type issues. They are clearly having problems with the whole notion of police entry into the home without a warrant and without exigent circumstances. They did not seem to buy the ADA's argument that the "Gunz" issue alone provided exigent circumstances. I noted the questions by the court about leaving a cop at the home and sending someone to the night magistrate for a warrant.
Assuming the court looks at the various amicus briefs, I'll be surprised if anything good comes from the "gunz" arguments. I suspect that the SJC will rule that the entry/seizure without a warrant was unconstitutional because that is the conclusion the trial judge came to. I suspect they will toss the "hindering" conviction too because they clearly did not like the ramifications of not cooperating with police morphing into a crime. The ADA did not help her case there when she said that yelling an instruction to the wife not the let the cops take the guns or enter the house sufficiently constituted this "crime".
1. This guy's lawyer was not very articulate and he seemed a bit "disjointed" at times. He definitely lost points on his presentation.
2. The Justice's seem to have little sympathy for the defendant "because gunz". Everyone seemed comfortable claiming this defendant/appellant was in fact guilty of domestic violence. That troubled me significantly because my understanding is that the record showed only a report from the wife's doctor and that "information" was never corroborated by anybody. They just took the report as gospel and revoked the defendants LTC.
3. The Justice's were clearly honing in on 1A and 4A type issues. They are clearly having problems with the whole notion of police entry into the home without a warrant and without exigent circumstances. They did not seem to buy the ADA's argument that the "Gunz" issue alone provided exigent circumstances. I noted the questions by the court about leaving a cop at the home and sending someone to the night magistrate for a warrant.
Assuming the court looks at the various amicus briefs, I'll be surprised if anything good comes from the "gunz" arguments. I suspect that the SJC will rule that the entry/seizure without a warrant was unconstitutional because that is the conclusion the trial judge came to. I suspect they will toss the "hindering" conviction too because they clearly did not like the ramifications of not cooperating with police morphing into a crime. The ADA did not help her case there when she said that yelling an instruction to the wife not the let the cops take the guns or enter the house sufficiently constituted this "crime".
I think you're probably spot-on. The justices CLEARLY don't like the idea that the police can administratively suspend a license and use that as pretext for unwarranted entry. They Gants also called out the the issue raised by amicus of committing a common law crime of interfering with the police by exercising a protected right.
Again, we're here because the police are lazy. Had they taken 30 minutes to go before a judge or magistrate, they'd have gotten a court order and the game would have been over.
Mike S
NES Member
This is all the lawyer representing Adam's needed to open with. Then he should've gone into the license revocation doesn't = police get to violate my 4A rights argument.
amm5061
NES Member
It seems like this should have been a no-brainer opening argument.... Do I have unrealistically high expectations of lawyers in general, or do we just keep drawing from the shallow end of the lawyer pool?
It's disappointing that they didn't pound on the difference between surrender vs seizure, or refusing to do something vs taking some action that constitutes interfering.
Last edited:
I think it was Gants who asked if he had an FID Card. I got the idea that he was going to ask about the differences between an LTC revocation and an FID revocation. An LTC can be suspended/revoked with no action by the court. Revocation of an FID card for suitability requires action by the court.
So.... I called my PD today and made an appointment to submit an FID application. I've already got an LTC. They think I'm nuts. That should make for an interesting discussion.
So.... I called my PD today and made an appointment to submit an FID application. I've already got an LTC. They think I'm nuts. That should make for an interesting discussion.
Saw the hearing live at the SJC. Hoping justices saw the folly of criminalizing the assertion of rights by an individual. The ADA was hung up on the PD being put in an "untenable" position of serving revocation papers and not getting to force their way in instead of going to court first.
Somewhat related is this recent SJC case: "under art. 14 the police cannot create the exigent circumstances used to
justify a warrantless entry to a home"
https://www.massachusettscriminalattorney-blog.com/files/2018/12/alexis.pdf
Somewhat related is this recent SJC case: "under art. 14 the police cannot create the exigent circumstances used to
justify a warrantless entry to a home"
https://www.massachusettscriminalattorney-blog.com/files/2018/12/alexis.pdf
