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

I've read Comm2A brief and i found that it was easy to read and connected each peice together. In short very good argument. I haven't watched the video yet. If Holden's attorney was basically asked if the Comm2A amicus is correct and he says no do the justices look into it? Do they say "hey this things spells everything out all nice and clear but the attorney arguing the case doesn't seem to know what he is talking about. Do they throw it out and just listen to him? Can they just rule that Holden didn't prove his case and tough your a PP?
 
Why shouldn't an unsuitable person be able to have a gun but restricted to home only? They argue with a straight face that gun free zones are for public safety and that they work. The street goes both ways and if the unsuitable person is restricted to his home, the public should not be in any danger. In essence, that person's gun free zone is everything but his house. Either restricting guns from places works or it doesn't. They can't have it both ways.
 
Why shouldn't an unsuitable person be able to have a gun but restricted to home only?

This is why the moving of the FID to may issue makes the entire licensing scheme unconstitutional under Heller/McDonald.

Before the Commiewealth could argue there was a shall issue FID coupled with the Permit to Purchase that allowed a person to possess a handgun at home. Now that the FID is may issue, the CommieWealth doesn't have a leg to stand on given a proper argument and intellectual honesty.
 
It seems the basic problem comes down to the fact that none of these idiots can take it upon themselves to understand the quite simple hardware in question and how the MA licensing scheme relates to that hardware. Heller talks about handguns. FIDs don't allow handguns. A person can't purchase or own a handgun, at all (for practical purposes) without having an LTC. HTF is that so hard to understands? HTF does someone get to that level of education and not be able to comprehend that? HTF does anyone sit on that bench and not know the laws as well as a bunch of hicks on an internet board?

HFS.
 
It seems the basic problem comes down to the fact that none of these idiots can take it upon themselves to understand the quite simple hardware in question and how the MA licensing scheme relates to that hardware. Heller talks about handguns. FIDs don't allow handguns. A person can't purchase or own a handgun, at all (for practical purposes) without having an LTC. HTF is that so hard to understands? HTF does someone get to that level of education and not be able to comprehend that? HTF does anyone sit on that bench and not know the laws as well as a bunch of hicks on an internet board?

HFS.
Willful ignorance is only a possibility.
 
It seems the basic problem comes down to the fact that none of these idiots can take it upon themselves to understand the quite simple hardware in question and how the MA licensing scheme relates to that hardware. Heller talks about handguns. FIDs don't allow handguns. A person can't purchase or own a handgun, at all (for practical purposes) without having an LTC. HTF is that so hard to understands? HTF does someone get to that level of education and not be able to comprehend that? HTF does anyone sit on that bench and not know the laws as well as a bunch of hicks on an internet board?

HFS.

Maybe because they have little to no interest in the subject matter and are likely shocked that in the Commiewealth one must have a license to carry a gun in order to purchase one, that there is no (as you say) practical way of owning a handgun in the home without a license to carry.

They probably don't sit around jawboning on NES and learning things that could save them a lot of skin someday. They ain't got [strike=me]LenS[/strike] Len-2A Training to gently correct any misunderstandings they might espouse. :D :D :D
 
It seems the basic problem comes down to the fact that none of these idiots can take it upon themselves to understand the quite simple hardware in question and how the MA licensing scheme relates to that hardware. Heller talks about handguns. FIDs don't allow handguns. A person can't purchase or own a handgun, at all (for practical purposes) without having an LTC. HTF is that so hard to understands? HTF does someone get to that level of education and not be able to comprehend that? HTF does anyone sit on that bench and not know the laws as well as a bunch of hicks on an internet board?

HFS.

Doesnt help when its affirmed by the plaintiffs lawyer.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Video has been posted:

SJC-11682 Video

I really encourage people to watch this and pay attention.

I just watched this video. It sounded like the Justices asked some good questions but Mel just couldn't give a straight answer to help himself out. After watching this I think the Gould and the AG office was better at getting their argument across but the justices still asked them questions that they tried to dodge.
 
OK, so now that the lunatics who think they can take down the entire system in one shot have had their day and ****ed us all royally, now it's time for the adults to get to work. This case was so ill-advised and reckless as to be basically a gift to the anti-gunners. These people may as well have been trying to make our lives miserable.
 
OK, so now that the lunatics who think they can take down the entire system in one shot have had their day and ****ed us all royally, now it's time for the adults to get to work. This case was so ill-advised and reckless as to be basically a gift to the anti-gunners. These people may as well have been trying to make our lives miserable.

This.
 
Would others here say that, even though Holden was never convicted of A&B and he was denied because of Gemme's own personal reasons, Holden's case probably wasn't the one to make a run for a case against unsuitability?
 
Would others here say that, even though Holden was never convicted of A&B and he was denied because of Gemme's own personal reasons, Holden's case probably wasn't the one to make a run for a case against unsuitability?

I'm no legal beagle, but I'd say "hell yes." It probably didn't help that his lawyer sucked either. (Watch the video and see what I'm talking about.)
 
OK, so now that the lunatics who think they can take down the entire system in one shot have had their day and ****ed us all royally, now it's time for the adults to get to work. This case was so ill-advised and reckless as to be basically a gift to the anti-gunners. These people may as well have been trying to make our lives miserable.

this. Holden wasn't anywhere close to a plausible case.
 
Footnote 9, perhaps more than any other statement in the case, demonstrates the sheer lack of understanding of the whole matter with this court.

"'9 The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment ("well regulated Militia") anticipates some regulation.'"

[puke]wow...actually no it doesn't anticipate that.
 
Last edited:
"'9 The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment ("well regulated Militia") anticipates some regulation.'"

[puke]wow...actually no it doesn't anticipates that.

Right? I read that and I was floored. Do they even know what "regulated" means in the 18th century context? Did they bother to look or did they just lift it from the Brady Center Amicus. (I bet they did). I was involved in a case which went to the SJC before and they lifted whole sections from Verizon's brief WITH SPELLING MISTAKES and tried to pass it off as their own text.
 
Footnote 9, perhaps more than any other statement in the case, demonstrates the sheer lack of understanding of the whole matter with this court.

Yes, the Mass SJC is a bunch of retards.

"The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment ("well regulated Militia") anticipates some regulation."

- - - Updated - - -

This is not good for NH either. We have suitable person language. The NHSC could decide to use this case when another suitability case comes before them.
 
Right? I read that and I was floored. Do they even know what "regulated" means in the 18th century context?

My understanding is that it meant something more akin to "healthy" or "robust". Is that accurate? Is there a scholarly work out there that I can point to when this comes up to defend that? My googling hasn't been very effective.
 
My understanding is that it meant something more akin to "healthy" or "robust". Is that accurate? Is there a scholarly work out there that I can point to when this comes up to defend that? My googling hasn't been very effective.

I think it meant "trained," but it's sort of irrelevant.

Heller decision said:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia....
 
My understanding is that it meant something more akin to "healthy" or "robust". Is that accurate? Is there a scholarly work out there that I can point to when this comes up to defend that? My googling hasn't been very effective.

pretty much.

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom