• 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 just posted an update on Davis vs. Grimes on Facebook

sbi

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
2,869
Likes
1,238
AG's response to the court's request for supplemental briefing has been posted.

Not a lawyer so clearly this is Chinese to me [frown]
 
Last edited:

swatgig

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
5,885
Likes
6,639
Location
In the shallow end of the gene pool
My uneducated reading on this is that Marsha wants the Feds to kick it back to a state court.

Since you are not a lawyer, you should not be permitted to comment on such matters.

My legal educated reading on this is that Marsha wants the Feds to kick it back to a state court.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
1,104
Likes
226
Location
Chichester, NH
Also NAL, but, there maybe a bit more to Martha's argument here.

She is wanting it to be "examined" in state court first, but I think she's more worried about this being examined as a 2A challenge.

If you keep it at the state level, they might be able to find that the towns policies have changed to be in compliance with all state laws now, so it's OK, even if they weren't before.

Find something some one did that keeps this out of a 2A decision by the courts, otherwise there could be lot's of challenges to MA Gun Laws.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,918
Likes
2,627
AG's response to the court's request for supplemental briefing has been posted.

Not a lawyer so clearly this is Chinese to me [frown]

You mean Comm2A just posted this... [wink]

My uneducated reading on this is that Marsha wants the Feds to kick it back to a state court.

Since you are not a lawyer, you should not be permitted to comment on such matters.

My legal educated reading on this is that Marsha wants the Feds to kick it back to a state court.
Ha ha! [smile]
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
82   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
18,950
Likes
3,546
Location
Stoughton
Reading about half way through, I see a discrepancy between Weymouths stated and actual policy, although it may be the way the brief is worded. Davis was not a first time applicant, he had a LTC B from Foxborough. It seems that in order to deny his LTC A unrestricted application, the town decided that he was a "first time LTC A applicant", which seems to be hair splitting of the finest degree.

Grimes May 2 affidavit is more hair splitting. It's pretty common knowledge that Weymouth doesn't issue unrestricted LTC-A licenses unless you fall into one of their categories or are "connected". This would seem to be a change in an attempt to make the case moot, at least from the Weymouth angle.

As background, a few years ago the MA Chief of Police Association issued a memo advising chief's not to issue "starter licenses" to applicants who requested unrestricted licenses and had no disqualifiers. I think that was because they were afraid that doing so might lead to litigation of attempts to change the MA licensing scheme.

I. The Court Should Abstain Because the Resolution of State Law Issues Could Obviate the Need to Decide the Second Amendment Claims.
A. Additional Fact Finding is Necessary to Identify the Current Policy in Each Community With Respect to First-Time Applications for Licenses to Carry.

Given the contortions that the SJC has gone through in the past to uphold even the most onerous provisions of MA firearms law, Davis et al, can certainly contend that they will not receive a fair and impartial hearing in state court, hence the need for the case to be heard in federal court.

The weak ass statements from both chief's that they have changed their policies to "consider" unrestricted licenses for first time applicants are meaningless. They can still deny those requests and issue restricted LTCs.

Which brings up another point. The AG's brief states that applicants can request a hearing on issuance of a LTC that is not as they requested. (restricted vs unrestricted, LTC B vs LTC A). Has there ever been a successful appeal to the issuance of a LTC B or restrictions on a LTC-A? I've always been told and read that only the flat out denial of a LTC of any type could be appealed.

This appears as an attempt to keep the case within the state court system, where a finding favorable to the defendants and the Commonwealth is more likely. At the least, it seems to be an attempt to add time and cost to the plaintiffs case by making them go through state court first and then maybe federal court. At which point the AG will say that the case has been litigated in state court, so that the federal courts should look at it again.
 
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
8,472
Likes
1,507
It seems reasonable to me to keep it at a federal level. The state court system has too much inbreeding and collusion with the state government to really ever rule against them in any significant manner. Seems the only way to really effect any change is at the federal level.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,582
Likes
7,804
Location
Near Framingham
It seems reasonable to me to keep it at a federal level. The state court system has too much inbreeding and collusion with the state government to really ever rule against them in any significant manner. Seems the only way to really effect any change is at the federal level.

That's why Comm2A filed in Federal Court and why Marsha wants it in state court.
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,149
Likes
1,318
So let's say there is more fact-finding and the chiefs provide in an affidavit that they denied the LTC A for personal protection b/c in the chief's discretion he believed that the requirements of 131(d) were not met, i.e., his view is that general self-defense is not a good reason to fear injury to your person or property. The state is arguing that the chiefs simply did not go through the process required by the statute, i.e., to make a determination after the applicant is given an opportunity to demonstrate good reason to fear injury. Then there is the issue of whether the chief, after having determined that a person has reason to fear his safety, can nonetheless impose restrictions. State is saying this is an open issue to be first addressed by the SJC (and argues that public safety dictates that inexperienced first time applicants should not be given unrestricted licenses).
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
3,009
Likes
1,525
Location
South Central MA
The Commonwealth is the outlier here. The responses filed by the towns agreed with us that the court should NOT certify a question to the SJC.

I found this odd. I would have figured that the AG and the defendants 'attorneys would have a pow-wow and submit similar arguments. Kind of got a chuckle that the defendants' response on this issue matched up with the plaintiff's and against the commonwealth's.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
16,268
Likes
13,715
Location
North Shore
The Chiefs were warned for many years that continuing to abuse the system would eventually lead to them being cut out of it.
Lets hope that this is the start of it.
The whole idea of the way it was structured to begin with so was that a chief would be able to keep known dirt bags that had never actually been convicted from getting a LTC.
I can think of one example in the town where I grew up in where the guy was getting drunk and beating the crap out of his wife and kids regularly.
She never pressed charges out of fear.
Poor gal looked like she went 3 rounds with Tyson half the time.
The guy got told to take a hike when he did apply.
It would be sad if a guy like that did end up armed and hurting someone or worst, because the state didn't know what the locals did, but they brought it down on themselves by abusing their authority.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
2,374
Likes
265
Location
Summerville, SC
With all the unresolved issues as the AG mentions, concerning the Commonwealth's Firearm's Laws illustrated by the Plaintiff's case, one would have the thought the State's AG would have been front and center at Beacon Hill advising the legislators to re-write the gun laws.

But no, she wasn't and they didn't.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...itiative-to-investigate-Broken-FID-LTC-system

I hope this case stays in the Federal Court.

Best regards.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
6,355
Likes
4,713
Location
Taunton
They are also clearly misrepresenting the content of 140 § 131(d) in order to stress "the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" and ignore the existence of the phrase "or for any other reason".

They also contend that the plaintiffs can reapply and have a judicial review if restricted even though that is clearly not the case.

Lies,lies and more lies - will they get called out on this?
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
2,624
Likes
542
Location
Berkshire County, MA
The Chiefs were warned for many years that continuing to abuse the system would eventually lead to them being cut out of it.
Lets hope that this is the start of it.
The whole idea of the way it was structured to begin with so was that a chief would be able to keep known dirt bags that had never actually been convicted from getting a LTC.
I can think of one example in the town where I grew up in where the guy was getting drunk and beating the crap out of his wife and kids regularly.
She never pressed charges out of fear.
Poor gal looked like she went 3 rounds with Tyson half the time.
The guy got told to take a hike when he did apply.
It would be sad if a guy like that did end up armed and hurting someone or worst, because the state didn't know what the locals did, but they brought it down on themselves by abusing their authority.

What's more sad is that if it ever got to where she wanted to protect herself with the best tools available, it would take months, a hundred dollars, and crossing her fingers while she begged the COP for permission to do so.
 

LittleCalm

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
3,149
Likes
1,318
They are also clearly misrepresenting the content of 140 § 131(d) in order to stress "the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" and ignore the existence of the phrase "or for any other reason".

Yeah, the first time 131(d) is mentioned in the state's brief, it quotes the statute, including the phrase "for any other reason." But after that the state says, when paraphrasing the statute, "or other valid reason." In any event, wouldn't the state say it doesn't matter because it's "may issue"?

They also contend that the plaintiffs can reapply and have a judicial review if restricted even though that is clearly not the case.

This "due process" seems illusory if the state wins on the argument that 131(d) is purely discretionary. A court will not overturn a decision not to issue unless it is completely arbitrary and capricious.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
805
Likes
120
image.jpg
This is weymouth a written policy on issuing LTC's seems clear that regardless if it's a new or renewal if you can't document a "need" you get restricted.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
17,199
Likes
9,655
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
I can not understand how laws and regulations can be so different and decided by one person from town/city. can't get one here move there. New CLEO different rules. Makes my head spin how they get away with it. it's just un ****ing believable !!!!
 
Last edited:

92G

Rating - 99.1%
108   1   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
7,987
Likes
4,583
Location
NC
I can not understand how laws and regulations can be so different and decided by one person from town/city. can't get one here move there. New CLEO different rules. Makes my head spin how they get away with it. it's just un ****ing believe !!!!

they prefer broken system because this way nobody is responsible.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,469
Likes
823
Location
Mass
The weymouth policy were like that before grimes. I got jerked around and basically told to screw on getting unrestricted. Even when renewing in another town early to get out from under them they refused to expire early and forced me to wait out the full time of the license.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
76,067
Likes
48,755
The weymouth policy were like that before grimes. I got jerked around and basically told to screw on getting unrestricted. Even when renewing in another town early to get out from under them they refused to expire early and forced me to wait out the full time of the license.

Did you get a lawyer to try to get them to dump the license? This has periodically been successful.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,469
Likes
823
Location
Mass
No, at the time I was unemployed and couldn't afford it. as of now it comes up in sept so its all dealt with. After the state called on my behalf because "He probably just doesn't know how to do it" and then called me back and said he told them to piss up a rope I figured it wouldn't work out.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
26,618
Likes
4,884
The Chiefs were warned for many years that continuing to abuse the system would eventually lead to them being cut out of it.
Lets hope that this is the start of it.
The whole idea of the way it was structured to begin with so was that a chief would be able to keep known dirt bags that had never actually been convicted from getting a LTC. ...

Then make it a state process, with a state form. Have a checkbox for where a local police chief can pay a $500 fee to appeal the application.


View attachment 103990
This is weymouth a written policy on issuing LTC's seems clear that regardless if it's a new or renewal if you can't document a "need" you get restricted.



Here is all the documentation one needs:

1. Published on Weymouth MA ([url]http://www.weymouth.ma.us)
Home > Police Department > Public Logs > Public Logs
Public Logs
Weekly public log of police activity[/url]

2. Home - Weymouth News - Weymouth, MA

3. Police & Fire Scanner

4. Police & Fire Follow this group to stay in the know about police and fire news happening in your neighborhood.
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,582
Likes
7,804
Location
Near Framingham
I can not understand how laws and regulations can be so different and decided by one person from town/city. can't get one here move there. New CLEO different rules. Makes my head spin how they get away with it. it's just un ****ing believable !!!!

The law is the same in all towns. That law gives the police chief discretion in issuing licenses.

As bad as MA law is, in some states it is almost impossible to get a carry license.
 

dgrafton

NES Member
Rating - 96.8%
30   1   0
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
2,541
Likes
677
Then make it a state process, with a state form. Have a checkbox for where a local police chief can pay a $500 fee to appeal the application.






Here is all the documentation one needs:

1. Published on Weymouth MA ([url]http://www.weymouth.ma.us)
Home > Police Department > Public Logs > Public Logs
Public Logs
Weekly public log of police activity[/url]

2. Home - Weymouth News - Weymouth, MA

3. Police & Fire Scanner

4. Police & Fire Follow this group to stay in the know about police and fire news happening in your neighborhood.

Weymouth sucks donkey balls! I couldn't wait to get out and would never go back. Part owner of a house there and I can't even use it, and selling isn't an option yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
17,199
Likes
9,655
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
The law is the same in all towns. That law gives the police chief discretion in issuing licenses.

As bad as MA law is, in some states it is almost impossible to get a carry license.


Law is not the same its made up, its not followed. some towns/cities go as far as changing the app and requirements
its Bullshit because one person can say no or restrict for no ****ing reason.
 
Last edited:

Mark from MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
47   0   0
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
5,758
Likes
2,650
The law is the same in all towns. That law gives the police chief discretion in issuing licenses.

As bad as MA law is, in some states it is almost impossible to get a carry license.

In some towns in MA its impossible for a taxpaying resident citizen of that town or city to get a carry license. Even if the chief crawls up his ass with a microscope and he is deemed a good citizen.

But because I have a good police chief in my town 15 miles away, i can carry in previous said persons town or city without their police chief even knowing me.

No matter how its explained, or justified at the whim of whatever licensing authority, this is arbitrary and capricious as it gets and makes my head explode. Its totally against 2a rights and to this day i have no idea how this stands any legal scrutiny after the 2a supreme court decision.

And even though i have no problem getting a ccw i will continue to give to comm2a for those that cant get a ccw in their town/city.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom