Elect better governors?
-
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 an Amicus in NRA backed suitability challenge at the SJC
- Thread starter terraformer
- Start date
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Zilch, zip, nadda. They retain discretion and there is no constitutional right to an appeal beyond the first appellate level, even in criminal cases.
I guess that I'm the minority here but I'm optimistic about a good outcome. If this case had three judges rule to reinstate his LTC before one ruled against it "seems" that they're looking at the fact that he wasn't convicted or additional information that I/we don't have. Gemme seems to be the biggest offender when it comes to abusing his power and, if it doesn't happen in this case it he will be involved in another, will be the defendant in a successful case.
Because of Ma laws they will have to rule that 2A applies outside the home because there is no way to own a handgun without a ltc. There is also no codified criteria for suitable person so they must declare statue is vague and force legislators to come up with a definition (this to uneducated me is very similar to Comm2A glock suit, there is no definition so it is too vague and void). The 3rd question is one where they say "hey your here and you had 4 other case so you had due process"
Because of Ma laws they will have to rule that 2A applies outside the home because there is no way to own a handgun without a ltc. There is also no codified criteria for suitable person so they must declare statue is vague and force legislators to come up with a definition (this to uneducated me is very similar to Comm2A glock suit, there is no definition so it is too vague and void). The 3rd question is one where they say "hey your here and you had 4 other case so you had due process"
Karen did a brilliant job!
Thank you for reading the brief.
Next to a healthy donation stream and good plaintiffs, nothing makes us happier than knowing that people are paying attention. We always had it in mind that we wanted MA gun owners to be better schooled on what it actually takes to bring the changes we all want. The better informed people are about their rights and how the courts work, the better we can do our jobs.
Karen is a long-time friend and I'll be sending her kudos via Email as well.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,531
- Likes
- 33,562
No. They would have to (assuming no judicial ledgerdermain) rule that an LTC was subject to due process because an LTC is required to exercise the rights protected under Heller/McDonald.
The beauty of Karen's amicus is that is does not require the court to make the leap that Heller/McDonald apply outside the home in order to drive towards a finding for our side.
My exp. with judges, in particular at the appeals level, is that they are lazy (political hacks) or overworked and look for any excuse not to take a case. Hence the procedure weeding. The fact that the SJC (who are both hacks and lazy) is taking this appeal really speaks to what they want to do with it. In this case, you are not a "friend of the Court" but to liberty and the Plaintiff as they needed the help.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Thanks xcom, that means a lot to hear a lawyer (or lawyer type) who can appreciate the more intricate aspects of the stuff we do . While I can appreciate weeding out cases on procedural defects (whether for laziness or high minded principles of legal doctrine), what drives me completely insane is that they don't apply these principles equally. This type of discretionary application of the law, especially at the appellate level, violates the spirit of EP, if not the letter of it. It's power protecting and begetting power.
Last edited:
That gets covered on pp. 28-29 of the amicus brief:
"If Gemme’s position that long standing practices are presumptively constitutional, then separate would be equal (Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954)), abortion would be illegal (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Goodridge would have upheld bans on same sex marriage."
Everybody is piling on this one. Check the SJC's page for new briefs from the Commonwealth and the Brady Center.
I was reading the mcop brief and it says "People who live or work in Massachusetts (with limited categorical exceptions) can obtain a firearms identification("FID") card -- without any showing of suitability -- allowing them to possess and carry a firearm in their home or place of business. G.L. c. 140 ~ 129B." Are they intentionally misleading the court? Didn't they just get done advocating for FID suitability through the deleo circus? What's the court procedure when a brief contains (soon to be) lies?
ETA: They all (briefs against) seem to be making the point that 2A is for "law abiding" people. When they argue that they need suitability, they're saying that the person was never convicted but they still need a way to make them not "law abiding." Is there some precedent somewhere that says you have to be convicted to be considered not "law abiding?"
ETA: They all (briefs against) seem to be making the point that 2A is for "law abiding" people. When they argue that they need suitability, they're saying that the person was never convicted but they still need a way to make them not "law abiding." Is there some precedent somewhere that says you have to be convicted to be considered not "law abiding?"
Last edited:
Giving this a little bump. Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow morning (Thursday) at 9am. You can watch the live video feed here:
http://www2.suffolk.edu/sjc/
Replays will also be available. I'll be attending in person and will give an update, but probably not until late in the evening.
http://www2.suffolk.edu/sjc/
Replays will also be available. I'll be attending in person and will give an update, but probably not until late in the evening.
The fun is about to start.
Is it me or is the attorney having trouble articulating his position?
Mike S
NES Member
Just a thought, sometimes with these Comm2A threads it can be hard to stay current and I have to back track pages to figure your what's going on. Would it be possible to ad a bullet point "status update" in the OP? (or something along that line)
That way we can stay current without having to go through a bunch of posts to figure out if something viable has happened, or if it's just chatter.
That way we can stay current without having to go through a bunch of posts to figure out if something viable has happened, or if it's just chatter.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
I just heard from Knuckle Dragger about what happened in the argument. Holden's attorney flubbed this big time. When asked, is amicus (comm2a) correct that an LTC is required in the home, he said, in effect, no, it's not. How many of you have handguns with FID cards? crickets... crickets...
See, this is what we deal with all of the time. Lawyers calling us up and telling us what a great case they have, thinking the rest of us are morons who can't fix this licensing stupidity. Meanwhile, their clients are dirtbags, they don't understand the law and they end up making it worse. While Holden's attorney never reached out to us, they did the NRA and unfortunately the NRA was too stupid to question it and funded this abortion. Holden's attorney appears to have been more interested in pushing for the SJC to recognize carry than he was forcing them to deal with suitability under Heller.
Here is how this case will come down. The SJC will not recognize carry, nor will they recognize that Heller applies to the LTC because it's required for possession in the home. They can do this because Holden's attorney gave them the out on that. What they will do is apply the same standards of drivers licenses to LTCs. Basically they will shift the burden of production and proof to the CLEO but they will not recognize this as a right. This will mean judges at LTC hearings will in essence use a probable cause standard to evaluate the credibility of the evidence. This is an exceedingly low standard. But this standard will suck out most of the good plaintiffs for a good federal challenge on suitability. Although, hopefully these moonbat lunatics can't help themselves and they let a few good cases slip through the cracks into our fingers.
I can't stress this enough, civil rights litigation is strategic and these hero wannabe idiots who bring cases thinking the rest of us are idiots are trading their shot at glory for your rights.
See, this is what we deal with all of the time. Lawyers calling us up and telling us what a great case they have, thinking the rest of us are morons who can't fix this licensing stupidity. Meanwhile, their clients are dirtbags, they don't understand the law and they end up making it worse. While Holden's attorney never reached out to us, they did the NRA and unfortunately the NRA was too stupid to question it and funded this abortion. Holden's attorney appears to have been more interested in pushing for the SJC to recognize carry than he was forcing them to deal with suitability under Heller.
Here is how this case will come down. The SJC will not recognize carry, nor will they recognize that Heller applies to the LTC because it's required for possession in the home. They can do this because Holden's attorney gave them the out on that. What they will do is apply the same standards of drivers licenses to LTCs. Basically they will shift the burden of production and proof to the CLEO but they will not recognize this as a right. This will mean judges at LTC hearings will in essence use a probable cause standard to evaluate the credibility of the evidence. This is an exceedingly low standard. But this standard will suck out most of the good plaintiffs for a good federal challenge on suitability. Although, hopefully these moonbat lunatics can't help themselves and they let a few good cases slip through the cracks into our fingers.
I can't stress this enough, civil rights litigation is strategic and these hero wannabe idiots who bring cases thinking the rest of us are idiots are trading their shot at glory for your rights.
Scarecrow
Army Veteran
So Holden's lawyer said something factually wrong and the judges set a precedent based on that? Is there any way to go to Holden's attorney, correct him and have him make a mea culpa statement to the court?
As a layman, it's amazing to me that the system works this way.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
The court won't set a precedent directly on it, so it doesn't matter. I believe he was aware of this fact and consciously chose to go with the incorrect dicta from prior post-Heller SJC cases. The SJC will ignore it, because they know we are right.
It was really interesting to hear one of the first question from the bench was based on our brief. It was disappoint to hear Holden's attorney get the answer wrong and then refer to GOAL's brief. The justices probably had a better handle on the amici briefs than the attorney did.
I found a question by Justice Hines (the newest justice) particularly troubling. She questioned Holden's attorney about the validity of his facial attack on the constitutionality of the suitability standard. Facial challenges are the hardest and they only succeed when there are NO set of circumstances under which a statute or regulation IS constitutional. Her questions was basically: 'Doesn't your facial challenge fail since Holden is unsuitable?' She's basically accepted as fact that he is unsuitable.
I also though several of the justices asked very good questions, and in fact there questioning seemed much better informed than it was in earlier cases. There was a good series of questions about burden shifting and one justice asked the AAG whether a determination of unsuitability was a lifetime disqualification and whether there was any means of remedying that disqualification. A couple of the justices also seemed to have trouble with the idea that on the basis of the same evidence, Holden might be an unsuitable person in the eyes of one police chief and perfectly suitable in the eyes of another. I don't think they got a good answer.
We'll post when the video becomes available. People should watch it and judge for themselves.
I found a question by Justice Hines (the newest justice) particularly troubling. She questioned Holden's attorney about the validity of his facial attack on the constitutionality of the suitability standard. Facial challenges are the hardest and they only succeed when there are NO set of circumstances under which a statute or regulation IS constitutional. Her questions was basically: 'Doesn't your facial challenge fail since Holden is unsuitable?' She's basically accepted as fact that he is unsuitable.
I also though several of the justices asked very good questions, and in fact there questioning seemed much better informed than it was in earlier cases. There was a good series of questions about burden shifting and one justice asked the AAG whether a determination of unsuitability was a lifetime disqualification and whether there was any means of remedying that disqualification. A couple of the justices also seemed to have trouble with the idea that on the basis of the same evidence, Holden might be an unsuitable person in the eyes of one police chief and perfectly suitable in the eyes of another. I don't think they got a good answer.
We'll post when the video becomes available. People should watch it and judge for themselves.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-11682
Jane Doe, Inc. filed a letter with the state asking to latch on to the MCOPA brief. I wonder if they will write a brief in support of Jaime Caetano for next month's session....
Jane Doe, Inc. filed a letter with the state asking to latch on to the MCOPA brief. I wonder if they will write a brief in support of Jaime Caetano for next month's session....
What's the contact info for this dufus attorney? I feel like calling him up and telling him what a moron he is, what a disservice he is to his client and to the 2A cause in general.
Okay, so it sounds like the only one missing from the amicus hit parade is the MSPCA.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Don't. Trust in the system to work this shit out in the end. If that crap starts happening this only gets worse, not better. I have personally witnessed how that type of backlash makes this worse, not better. People tend to dig in and fight to prove they are right when faced with that kind of questioning of their approach.
Fair enough. I trust your judgement on pretty much everything.
Similar threads
