Comm2A files an Amicus in NRA backed suitability challenge at the SJC

[terraformer]

I want to make it clear, Comm2A did not chose this case. We had been trying to get to court before this case. We think this case is poorly briefed and will be used to hurt us. Our amicus is an attempt to do damage control.

 

[Smokewagon]

So I spent time reading this while I should have been working. Got busted by boss. Boss is all "Whatcha reading?" Boss reads and then says "This is effing amazing!".

No longer busted, and hopefully another Comm2A donor has been created.

 

[Friday]

"But that's the way we've always done it." That was the cry of four convicted speakers of the house.... MA seems to think it's entitled to act the way they act because they've gotten away with it for so long.

Nice brief, but you know the SJC will side with the superior court because, Gun. I assume this amicus is directed toward the First Circuit Court, and beyond?

Sadly, the feds will need to be involved to straighten all this mess out, and MA will, of course, ignore the eventual orders until someone's feet are held tightly to the fire.

I assume protesting at an abortion clinic (exercising 1A rights) would have been harder to twist to their particular version of logic?

Ya gotta start somewhere.

 

[atilla]

i like where this is going.

 

[swatgig]

The history of the Mass gun laws is amazing. I never realized there was once a distinction between "carrying" and "possessing".

 

[Glockster30]

I just want to make sure everyone understands, we are an amicus, not the plaintiffs or paying for the case. This case has been around for years and the sjc took this case over ours last year. Our guy protested abortion clinics. This guy beat the crap out of his wife, allegedly as the wife has since recanted. We plan(ned) on taking a suitability case in early 2015. It is very likely the SJC was trying to screw us gun owners in this case. We hopefully just dropped a turd in that punch bowl with our amicus brief. See, the SJC was too busy buying the AGs bill shit hook line and sinker but the LTC is required for possession in the home. The SJC likely took this case to continue to screw with the premise that the right to arms exists outside the home and to shove suitability down our throats just a little harder. This may not be the greatest vehicle for that any longer...

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) clarified "suitability issues" or prohibited persons, on federal form 4473, as follows:

* Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]* Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
* Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
* Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
* Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.
* Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
* Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
* Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)
* Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[SUP][16][/SUP]
* A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

Holden allegedly "beat the crap out of his wife" but he was never "convicted" which is the key word in the above next to last bullet. Therefore, isn't the above list deemed acceptable for describing suitability for all MACoPs to follow instead of the arbitrary and capricious BS?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...l4CABw&usg=AFQjCNGKyFve45KV1txSBJSdc3-kzgzxqA

 

[MaynardDad]

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) clarified "suitability issues"

That was 80 years after the "suitable person" language made its way into Massachusetts law.

 

[terraformer]

That was 80 years after the "suitable person" language made its way into Massachusetts law.

And is completely irrelevant because it's two different sovereign governments.

Look, I don't know if the allegations against this guy are true, but there are more facts in this than just her statements, one of which is his own statements that he actually did something to his wife. I think he deserves a fair day in court, but here is the problem I see. These moonbat lunatics think that we are all criminals who don't get caught. They will use this guy's dismissal as proof the bar to proving unsuitability needs to be low and that 100 innocent men must suffer for the 1 who actually deserves the smack down.

When you design these cases, you need to eliminate the chance of the people against you using these tropes to justify things. We had been trying to get through the court system people who are choir boys in relation to this guy. Look at Hill. When the opposition controls the courts, you need to be careful. This case was not careful. It was reckless and we will all suffer because of it.

 

[MaynardDad]

From the Gemme brief: "On June 17, 2010, after an almost two-year period in which this matter remained dormant and Holden took no action, Holden filed a request for judicial review … of the Chief's 2006 revocation of his license to carry."

Did the NRA CRDF guys put him up to that? How do these things come about—do you and the other organizations have back room strategy meetings?

 

[terraformer]

Another thing, we have never stated this publicly but we have been involved in about 10 suitability cases in some manner or form over the last 4 years. We don't publicly acknowledge the cases because we needed them to be processed as per the norm. But between all of the courts nitpicking on little procedural problems whenever we got a keeper, inadvisable SJC cases resetting the clock and forcing us to go back to step 1 and legislative changes doing the same, we never got anywhere.

See, this case should be remanded solely based on the new law. And if it was one of our plaintiffs, that is exactly what would have happened. But because the SJC are not impartial justices, they will excuse all procedural defects and pontificate till the cows come home on how our CLEOs are so smart and should be able to screw with us at any moment, because "it's for the children".

- - - Updated - - -

From the Gemme brief: "On June 17, 2010, after an almost two-year period in which this matter remained dormant and Holden took no action, Holden filed a request for judicial review … of the Chief's 2006 revocation of his license to carry."

Did the NRA CRDF guys put him up to that? How do these things come about—do you and the other organizations have back room strategy meetings?

I have no idea. This is not our guy. We have nothing to do with the case in chief. If I was to speculate, it was strategic waiting for Macdonald to come down. You have to realize, this guy and his lawyers are really looking like they think they will be heroes and save us from suitability.

ETA: I point you back to the above. A case that old should have been remanded after Simkin and it should have been remanded after the law changed. It was remanded neither time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You have to realize, this guy and his lawyers are really looking like they think they will be heroes and save us from suitability.

We have me the enemy and he is us.

A problem that occurs is "gun owner has problem; goes to attorney; attorney wants a ca$e and gets some NRA funding, Comm2A gets sucked in on a case we never would have brought".

It's like Chardin (a decisive loss for our side on juvenile sealed records). It is unlikely Comm2A would have chosen a plaintiff caught carrying a handgun at age 14 as the test case.

When someone comes to Comm2A, we can, and do, reject cases that are not likely to help the cause. A private practice attorney who has a client saying "I will pay you to bring this case" or "You can get paid if the NRA civil rights defense fund helps with this case" is an entirely different matter.

 

[Glockster30]

That was 80 years after the "suitable person" language made its way into Massachusetts law.

I'm not sure of the relevant point here because Heller and McDonald happened 70 years after the 1939 Miller case, which many people believed was the final word on the 2nd amendment when Miller wasn't even a 2nd amendment decision made by SCOTUS.

 

[Mudfish]

The problem it seems that if you are the individual who doesn't make for a good test case, then what? Are you supposed to just give up your fight to restore your own rights? I realize it makes it tougher on Comm2A and the rest of us, but I can see how someone isn't willing to just give up because their background and case isn't as clean as everyone would like.

 

[pastera]

Comm2A - Take a gander here: http://www.cfcnca.org/charities-federations/charity-applications

One entry:
10042 Gun Owners Foundation (703)321-8585 www.gun
owners.org EIN#521297380 Defending America’s
unique constitutional right to keep and bear arms,
through education and legal assistance in important
firearms cases.

If there are existing firearms charities, Com2A should be also able to get listed opening up the ability for direct giving (out of sight, out of mind)

 

[MaynardDad]

I'm not sure of the relevant point here because Heller and McDonald happened 70 years after the 1939 Miller case, which many people believed was the final word on the 2nd amendment when Miller wasn't even a 2nd amendment decision made by SCOTUS.

My only point was that if there had already been a federal definition in place for "suitable person" in 1906, then one could maybe argue that the undefined "suitable person" in Massachusetts law should be given the established, federal meaning. But since the federal definition came much later, and was not intended to clarify Massachusetts law, that doesn't work.

 

[Garys]

Because, as has been said here and in other places, bad cases make bad law. In this state at least, if you are not squeaky clean and bring a 2A case, the courts, particularly the SJC, will use that as an excuse to further erode 2A rights for everyone.

I think that at least in MA the keys to a successful suit are,

Have an ideal, perfect plaintiff.
Have a solid legal case.
File in federal court, not state court. Not that this is a guarantee, but it helps.

As I found in my career as a paramedic, sometimes the things you don't do are more beneficial than the things that you do.

The problem it seems that if you are the individual who doesn't make for a good test case, then what? Are you supposed to just give up your fight to restore your own rights? I realize it makes it tougher on Comm2A and the rest of us, but I can see how someone isn't willing to just give up because their background and case isn't as clean as everyone would like.

 

[Garden12]

The problem it seems that if you are the individual who doesn't make for a good test case, then what? Are you supposed to just give up your fight to restore your own rights? I realize it makes it tougher on Comm2A and the rest of us, but I can see how someone isn't willing to just give up because their background and case isn't as clean as everyone would like.

I will never go into detail about my situation online, but lets to just say I can't get a LTC in my town. It's a long story, but the only thing I will say is that has nothing to do with anything criminal related. I contacted comm2a, and they declined my case, and I respect that. They didn't decline it because they don't like me, or they that don't want to help me, they declined it because it probably would not make a good test case. I donate to them when I can because I realize once they do get a good case related to my issue, and hopefully the ruling is in their favor, then it most likely will benefit me. So, no, I don't consider that I am giving up.

 

[Glockster30]

My only point was that if there had already been a federal definition in place for "suitable person" in 1906, then one could maybe argue that the undefined "suitable person" in Massachusetts law should be given the established, federal meaning. But since the federal definition came much later, and was not intended to clarify Massachusetts law, that doesn't work.

I think that my point is being missed in that the FOPA PP descriptions/guidelines could be adopted to clarify the "suitability" definition that is lacking in MA law, thus removing the arbitrary and capricious actions now used by MACoP agencies.

 

[MaynardDad]

I think that my point is being missed in that the FOPA PP descriptions/guidelines could be adopted to clarify the "suitability" definition that is lacking in MA law, thus removing the arbitrary and capricious actions now used by MACoP agencies.

But the court can't do that. It could strike the "appears that the applicant is a suitable person" language for vagueness, and then we're left with the disqualifiers in 131(d). And of course the federal definition of prohibited person comes on top of that, but the list in 131(d) won't go away.

But if Holder's case is as bad as the Comm2Aies seem to think (I'm not qualified to have an opinion), we don't need to think about this for a while.

 

[rwl1955]

another small donation inbound.

 

[terraformer]

The problem it seems that if you are the individual who doesn't make for a good test case, then what? Are you supposed to just give up your fight to restore your own rights? I realize it makes it tougher on Comm2A and the rest of us, but I can see how someone isn't willing to just give up because their background and case isn't as clean as everyone would like.

No, they shouldn't. But you have no idea how the participation of the NRA changes judges behavior. The problem lies in part on the support they got.

That said, there are lot of people who were working with us and being patient. They see the strategic goal and are willing to man up, be creative, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I will never go into detail about my situation online, but lets to just say I can't get a LTC in my town. It's a long story, but the only thing I will say is that has nothing to do with anything criminal related. I contacted comm2a, and they declined my case, and I respect that. They didn't decline it because they don't like me, or they that don't want to help me, they declined it because it probably would not make a good test case. I donate to them when I can because I realize once they do get a good case related to my issue, and hopefully the ruling is in their favor, then it most likely will benefit me. So, no, I don't consider that I am giving up.

Thank you for speaking up. I don't know what your case details are because I can't tie you to your screen name, but thank you for representing publicly the side of those who were willing to sacrifice for the greater good. There are lots of people like you who respected the position we were in and we appreciate the sacrifice you all made.

 

[Glockster30]

But the court can't do that. It could strike the "appears that the applicant is a suitable person" language for vagueness, and then we're left with the disqualifiers in 131(d). And of course the federal definition of prohibited person comes on top of that, but the list in 131(d) won't go away.

But if Holder's case is as bad as the Comm2Aies seem to think (I'm not qualified to have an opinion), we don't need to think about this for a while.

Okay, still missing my point, perhaps because I am not clearly explaining my position. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

 

[Mudfish]

No, they shouldn't. But you have no idea how the participation of the NRA changes judges behavior. The problem lies in part on the support they got.

That said, there are lot of people who were working with us and being patient. They see the strategic goal and are willing to man up, be creative, etc.

- - - Updated - - -



Thank you for speaking up. I don't know what your case details are because I can't tie you to your screen name, but thank you for representing publicly the side of those who were willing to sacrifice for the greater good. There are lots of people like you who respected the position we were in and we appreciate the sacrifice you all made.

I totally get what you are saying, but it sure is a bitter pill for someone caught up in their own problems. These days it seems you guys have so many irons in the fire that you are probably fighting the fight for many of the people caught up in a bad situation, so maybe it isn't as bad as it once was. Either way my meager monthly donation to Comm2A continues. Keep fighting!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I don't think that Holder's case is necessarily bad. Like Chardin, it's sub-optimal and I don't think his attorney is necessarily framing the issues in the best possible way.

There are a couple of reasons we might thing a case is 'sub-optimal' and it's usually because some aspect is an OMG distraction. Here the distraction is domestic violence. If you read the MCOPA amicus you have to look pretty careful to see that Holden was never prosecuted let alone convicted. They actually refer to him as a domestic abuser.

Granted, there are an awful lot of DV cases that should go forward but don't due to reluctant victims and witnesses. Things are always more sensitive when families are involved. (One lawyer told me that family disputes put additions on lawyers' homes). There is justifiably a great deal of sensitivity around DV, but at the end of the day how much due process to we want to sacrifice in the name of protecting victims? So when an allegation of DV is the underlying issue in a case we know that it's going to be scrutinized differently than another suitability denial. This is the same issue we had with Chardin. It wasn't his juvenile record per se, it was our well-founded fear that the justices would focus on the 'gun' aspect of his juvenile adjudication.

CWOFs are another issue. They're not convictions, but what most people fail to understand is that in agreeing to a CWOF someone is also admitting that there are sufficient facts to get a conviction. It's not a conviction, but it's not exoneration either. Call it "conviction light".

We offered up a much better and cleaner case in Hill v. Provencher and the SJC declined cert. This would have been a much better vehicle for answering these outstanding questions, but rather than grant cert they waited for a case like Holden to come along instead. I'm not optimistic about what they'll do with it. However, in all fairness, you never know. I'm still surprised that they reinstated the NR-LTC for a guy that goes to a doctor's office under an assumed name, carrying multiple firearms and knives and then pays in cash.

 

[PaulD]

As usual, I think Comm2A is doing a great job, and thanks for that.

I'm not sure I'm feeling this case though.

 

[jtnf]

GOAL just filed their amicus...
http://goal.org/newspages/goal-files-gemme-v-holden.html

 

[Garys]

As usual, I think Comm2A is doing a great job, and thanks for that.

I'm not sure I'm feeling this case though.

I'm feeling it, just not in a place I'd particular care to.

 

[PaulD]

I'm feeling it, just not in a place I'd particular care to.

That's par for the course in MA.

 

[Garys]

That's par for the course in MA.

It sure is.

 

[JohnZ]

We offered up a much better and cleaner case in Hill v. Provencher and the SJC declined cert.

Do you think they are intentionally rejecting the "good" cases? If so what recourse is there to that?