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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Do you think they are intentionally rejecting the "good" cases? If so what recourse is there to that?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
This is my favorite argument. Kind of like: "Jim Crowe does not infringe upon the 15th Amendment because we have been discriminating against blacks for 150 years."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.