This. I don't have the first hand experience terra does, but I've seen it play out exactly that way in another jurisdiction.
-
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
This. I don't have the first hand experience terra does, but I've seen it play out exactly that way in another jurisdiction.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Actually, pardon me while i slap ourselves in the back, but despite that we were Amicus on this case and not lead counsel, we earned the donations on this one. We write these briefs to fulfill strategic goals with the court and we have had a significant amount of impact on some cases. Based on the questions asked in this one, I believe this may have been one of the most influential and impactful briefs we have written.
We need peoples donations to be able to sustain this. I am working on an Amicus for next month's session and it has taken a good 40 hours of work to layout, research, etc and I will be working through the weekend to get it further along. I am researching laws from the mid 1850s and reading and researching cases from back then too. Then an attorney will take it the rest of the way which costs money, as well as printing and court costs. I do this for prep work for free so we can help sustain the balance sheet for when we need lawyers to do lawyerly stuff for real, etc. Despite this, these briefs still cost $5K+ to file despite the amount of work we do on them. Although Karen was the primary author on this one, she lifted stuff she did from an earlier case to help defray costs. And a NES member and law school student at the time was also instrumental in helping write the brief that served as the seed to this one and he worked for free to get the experience. It's truly a team effort on these things. But relying on free crap is not sustainable (unless you have an EBT card apparently...) and we need donations to keep going.
To keep this enterprise strong, please donate.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Technically isn't there a (never used) provision in the law that allows someone without an LTC to get a permit to purchase? Maybe that's what he was "confused" about.
Yep. This is not the first time or the last either....
Yes, but Comm2A's brief tore that to shreds.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
So then this guy didn't even bother to read Comm2A's brief? That seems like a winning strategy...
(To be fair, neither did I but then again I wasn't the guy standing in front of the SJC this morning.)
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
We are not sure what he did or didn't do at the moment. Based on a conversation afterwards, he may have confused the question and as a result the answer, including who wrote the brief. Long story, but who knows at this point. Hopefully the SJC simply does the right thing.
Quiet
Banned
I have mentioned it before and have not been able to find it again. There was (I believe) a SCOTUS decision that found that the existence of a process for an agency to issue a tax stamp was sufficient to prove that the ability to obtain a stamp existed, even though they had never actually issued a single stamp.
That case (if it could be found) would be devastating to the argument that because the FID/Permit to Purchase has never been issued it doesn't exist.
That case (if it could be found) would be devastating to the argument that because the FID/Permit to Purchase has never been issued it doesn't exist.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Yeah, we know the PTP hasn't been used so it's invalid argument is not strong, but that's not what we said. We said that this shows that it's the symptom of the statutory language to prove the statutory language is in fact being enforced exactly as we say it should be. ie; that the FID card is useless for a handgun in the home and is therefore not issued. The people in EOPSS in 1998 weren't stupid either. They knew what the law said, this is why they won't issue them.
The SJC are not stupid, they know statutory construction better than most lawyers. They just never looked at the statute closely enough, which is why we have been doing this for them and forcing them to question their assumptions and prior case law. I also want them to start questioning the bull shit they get from the AGs office and the various towns. We win when they question the bull shit. We win when the truth is told.
iofneedle
NES Member
Please consider automatic monthly donations to Comm2A. You know you want to...just do it.
Really fantastic work. Automatic donations every month are completely worth it!
I have no idea how the system works - but can you file some kind of follow-up to the oral arguments with the answer you would have given to the question? On the plus side, it sounds like the SJC actually read the brief and understood it.
I believe this was related to the Marihuana (sp) Tax Act. The Feds couldn't ban weed outright at the time (1930s) so they slapped a tax on it and then refused to issue the tax stamps, creating a de facto ban.
The SJC solicited amicus briefs in this case. Is that standard procedure, or does it mean that they were not impressed with the arguments from the lawyers on either side?
Quiet
Banned
Which other cases do you think have shown that the SJC is becoming aware of the abuses of the law (and/or the officials)? Simkin? Others?
I think it's incredibly brilliant to develop a level of respect with the courts over time.
We can only speculate on this question. In general, I think they solicit brief when they want more input from more sources. It's probably safe to assume that they ask for amicus brief when they feel that the existing case law or background is thin, when their dealing with cases of first impression (which this kind of is), or when their decision could radically change how a unit of government executes its responsibilities. These all apply here.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
It happens about 6-10 times per session so about 10-20% of the cases they hear. Brent answer the rest in the other parts so add what he says to what I just stated.
- - - Updated - - -
This is the first one, though Simkin MAYBE indicative of a maturing understanding of the right. Though I don't know for sure.
Words cannot express my relief that there were no cameras in the Federal Courthouse this afternoon.
Editor
NES Member
Federal? Is this not before the MA SJC?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Steve had another case in the federal court today. He was not the lawyer in Holden.
My wife came in and asked what was up after she heard me yelling at the computer monitor "No it doesn't! This guy doesn't know what he is talking about!" (I watched the video before reading this thread).
How do you think I felt sitting there in the court room next to the attorney that wrote our brief?
I was about to say "It might have been worth the contempt charge" to yell out from the audience, but then, ironically, I remembered suitability . . .
As mentioned above, the only redeeming thing about this oral argument is that the justices did ask *some* good questions to the state and Gemme's attorneys, but overall the whole thing was pretty bad.
It seems like the justices assumed he was unsuitable on mere suspicion and not an actual conviction. Scary.
It's a good thing I'm not a lawyer. I don't think I could sit there for that railroad job and be quiet.
It only got worse in the afternoon in federal court when I had to listen to the BPD attorney tell the court that the never had the policy were were challenging.
That must have been infuriating. Thanks for all the hard work.
The attorney for Holden seems to have dropped the ball on drawing the connection that an LTC is necessary for the possession of a handgun INSIDE the home, which has already been addressed by SCOTUS, and would eliminate any ambiguity as to to whether Holden is being denied a right or privilege. I understand this was addressed in an amicus brief but the justices seem to have glanced over this.
I also find it hilarious how Gemme's attorney takes the position that if someone isn't charged with a crime, taken to court, and found not guilty, then the evidence that could have been used in a trial but never was can be used to deny someone a right.
It seems to me this would have been a slam dunk if it was established that an LTC is required for possession of a handgun in the home, and that Holden was denied by a singular authority that right based off nothing but a recanted statement and circumstantial observations made by others not present during the alleged altercation.
On the other hand the judges seem to be somewhat suspicious of Gemme's position.
Mike
I also find it hilarious how Gemme's attorney takes the position that if someone isn't charged with a crime, taken to court, and found not guilty, then the evidence that could have been used in a trial but never was can be used to deny someone a right.
It seems to me this would have been a slam dunk if it was established that an LTC is required for possession of a handgun in the home, and that Holden was denied by a singular authority that right based off nothing but a recanted statement and circumstantial observations made by others not present during the alleged altercation.
On the other hand the judges seem to be somewhat suspicious of Gemme's position.
Mike
Last edited:
Similar threads
