Comm2A files second Carry Suit, Batty v. Albertelli

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,259
Likes
5,792
Location
My forest stronghold
Lowell's motion for dismissal was granted as both Lowell plaintiffs now have unrestricted LTCs. That just leaves Winchester. The hearing was on cross motions and the judge had David Jensen, our attorney go first. David presented his hs for about 40 minutes before running out of things to say. Winchester's attorney only countered for about 10 minutes.

It didn't go badly, but how well it went won't be known until we see a decision, which could be six months away. This judge doesn't seem to hate us the way others appear to, so maybe that's good.
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,370
Likes
699
Location
Needham, MA
Lowell's motion for dismissal was granted as both Lowell plaintiffs now have unrestricted LTCs. That just leaves Winchester. The hearing was on cross motions and the judge had David Jensen, our attorney go first. David presented his hs for about 40 minutes before running out of things to say. Winchester's attorney only countered for about 10 minutes.

It didn't go badly, but how well it went won't be known until we see a decision, which could be six months away. This judge doesn't seem to hate us the way others appear to, so maybe that's good.

Certainly better than "I'm going to rule for the AG, but let's go through the motions."

Is Lowell giving everyone unrestricted permits these days like some of the other dismissed defendants?
 

bigblue

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
14,796
Likes
4,100
Certainly better than "I'm going to rule for the AG, but let's go through the motions."

Is Lowell giving everyone unrestricted permits these days like some of the other dismissed defendants?


"Is this a win?"
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,938
Likes
2,693
Certainly better than "I'm going to rule for the AG, but let's go through the motions."

Is Lowell giving everyone unrestricted permits these days like some of the other dismissed defendants?

As far as we know, whoever wants one has a path to getting one and should be getting them if they ask for it, and jump through some stupid, useless hurdles ATM (to be dealt with later). That's a marked improvement on "don't bother applying", though far from ideal.
 

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
163
Likes
1,134
The decision on this case came in today - a loss. Opinion

To the extent that imposing a “target and hunting” restriction on an applicant who fails to show “good reason to fear injury” burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, that requirement is substantially related to the state’s important objective in protecting public safety and preventing crime.
In short, the policy that requires applicants to show a specific reason to fear in order to be issued unrestricted firearm licenses, and its authorizing statute, are constitutional.
Accordingly, the placing of target and hunting restrictions on the licenses of applicants who do not show good reason to fear injury is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
20,063
Likes
15,035
Location
Jambi
Complete, ****ing pile of shit. This judge hasn't got a ****ing clue, what a complete POS. Please tell us this gets appealed ! That pile of horse shit cannot stand.



Accordingly, the placing of target and hunting restrictions on the licenses of applicants who do not show good reason to fear injury is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"his legal rights were being infringed"[/COLOR]
 
Last edited:

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,376
Likes
8,089
It's been asked, what's the answer? Is this going to the next level?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,734
Likes
8,142
Location
Near Framingham
Give Comm2a some time. They need to analyze the decision and determine the best course of action. Also, they might choose to not disclose their decision until they file their appeal (and appeals take some time to draft).
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,525
Likes
23,675
The decision says that "equal protection" does not apply because it is not targeting a "suspect class".

I guess the real suspect class is "persons without privilege, power and influence".
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
28,931
Likes
7,417
is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment

But is this personal safety, vs. "public safety"?
 
Last edited:

MachineHead

NES Member
Rating - 100%
65   0   0
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
8,331
Likes
3,559
Location
Central MA
See this (written from a Progressive point-of-view, btw) about the Trumpster's Judicial appointments capability:

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/23/trump-may-get-most-federal-judicial-appointments-since-1950s/

Excellent article!

It goes without saying there is little chance that Trump’s appointments will follow Obama’s template, given his overwhelmingly white male cabinet. If anything, it appears that Trump will only appoint those most willing to rubber-stamp presidential and congressional actions, given his continuing pejorative remarks slamming federal judges who have voided his immigration orders as unconstitutional.

Just consider this diatribe from Thursday’s press conference where Trump attacked judges who drew the line on his sloppily written immigration ban on travelers from seven Muslim countries.

“The court system has not made it easy for us,” Trump said. “And [we] are even creating a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, which there are many. We have taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country. Though parts of our necessary and constitutional actions were blocked by a judge’s—in my opinion incorrect and unsafe—ruling, our administration is working night and day to keep you safe, including reporters safe, and is vigorously defending this lawful order.”

Well, maybe they should've thought about that before they reacted in such a ridiculous way. Elections have consequences, Lefty scumbags.
 
Last edited:

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,094
Likes
8,679
Location
Taunton
Love the mental gymnastics - At least intermediate scrutiny applies but because the 1st Circuit hasn't explicitly said intermediate, we are going to use a different (lower) level of scrutiny but we can still lie and say we used heightened scrutiny because we discussed it.
 
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
2,064
Likes
1,465
...Is Lowell giving everyone unrestricted permits these days like some of the other dismissed defendants?

As far as we know, whoever wants one has a path to getting one and should be getting them if they ask for it, and jump through some stupid, useless hurdles...

Any guesses if, based upon this decision, cities like Lowell that were pressured in various ways (including by this case) into changing their policies will go back to the old system of restricting almost everybody who isn't "special"?

If/when this decision is appealed, maybe that would give them pause, at least for now?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
10
Likes
0
I had a feeling the court would simply follow Kachalsky, Woollard, and Drake. Cross your fingers that Peruta gets taken by SCOTUS. The appeals courts in their current form aren't going to lift a finger to help. They just want to follow each other and whittle Heller away to nothing.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
20,063
Likes
15,035
Location
Jambi
To the extent that imposing a “target and hunting” restriction on an applicant who fails to show “good reason to fear injury” burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, that requirement is substantially related to the state’s important objective in protecting public safety and preventing crime.



In short, the policy that requires applicants to show a specific reason to fear in order to be issued unrestricted firearm licenses, and its authorizing statute, are constitutional.



Accordingly, the placing of target and hunting restrictions on the licenses of applicants who do not show good reason to fear injury is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment

Burden of proof is on the State ! No need to provide anything for a RIGHT..They are so ****ing wrong on this one. Corrupt.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,525
Likes
23,675
Any guesses if, based upon this decision, cities like Lowell that were pressured in various ways (including by this case) into changing their policies will go back to the old system of restricting almost everybody who isn't "special"?
Probably not.

1. Inertia is a very powerful force.

2. Lowell, etc. will gain experience demonstrating that allowing "ordinary, unimportant, unconnected" people unrestricted permits has absolutely no effect on the crime rate, statistically speaking. Mis use of a gun by an LTC holder as well as defensive use are statistical outliers that don't do much to move the needle.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,123
Likes
68,702
Any guesses if, based upon this decision, cities like Lowell that were pressured in various ways (including by this case) into changing their policies will go back to the old system of restricting almost everybody who isn't "special"?

If/when this decision is appealed, maybe that would give them pause, at least for now?

May not be related to this specifically but since Comm2A has become active in the past several years I've noticed an attendant reduction in douche towns. There are some that have maintained their horrendous status (springfield, brookline, watertown, etc. ) but lots of other towns have either gone green or flipped to "significantly less obnoxious than before" yellow type states of LTC issuance. I mean some of it is coincidental- EG, caused by departure of crappy old coot chiefs or lefties, etc, but I think that some of them may actually be rethinking their policy decisions on this stuff because even though lawsuits don't cost them personally it might cost them professionally by even being named in such a lawsuit down the road. Say for example chief XYZ wants to move to a more rural community because of his wife or some BS; well, ruralMAtownthatsgreenasthedayislong Might make the conscious decision to intentionally avoid hiring a chief whose name appears in a lawsuit... that basically yellls out "HEY THIS CHIEF IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY COST THE TOWN EXTRA MONEY".

-Mike
 
Top Bottom