• 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 Sues Boston Police over Passports

Wow, just wow. So this was just a decades old 'misunderstanding. And Commish Evans learned about the problem from Universal Hub and not his own, in-house legal department? At least we now have him on record admitting that there's probably no better proof of citizenship than a passport.
 
Last edited:
Problem is that if BPD folds without a court ruling other PDs who are just as abusive can continue doing so with impunity until one of them stands firm and a Fed Court rules against them.
 
Wow, just wow. So this was just a decade old 'misunderstanding. And Commish Evans learned about the problem from Universal Hub and not his own, in-house legal department?

Basically...I suppose what works at the federal level will work at lower government levels too, that's the takeaway. So essentially, ignorance is now the preferred excuse of those in positions of authority. "I didn't know, I found out from news, just like you" Sound familiar?
 
Problem is that if BPD folds without a court ruling other PDs who are just as abusive can continue doing so with impunity until one of them stands firm and a Fed Court rules against them.

Except now, these other PDs will know that there is a serious threat of federal litigation if they do so. The days of "look kid, we know you couldn't afford district court, much less federal" are long gone.
 
So is BPD going to reach out to all of the applicants who were shown the door when they showed up with passports?
 
Did Comm2A's lawyer make inquiring phone calls and send threatening letters before filing the suit? Any response?

Are you happy that BDP folds early, or would you have preferred that they fight the case so you can set a precedent?
 
Last edited:
Commish Evans saying it was a "misunderstanding at the front desk" from the same mouth that says Boston residents don't "need a rifle or shotgun".

Sure totally believable why did we ever doubt the old Commish [puke2]
 
How come nobody sue them for not giving Conceal carry license to people with clean background check? Instead you have to show them the reason and proof to be a business owner ... Not a regular business owner can get issue to carry. The proof of carrying a lot of cash on you.. 0_0"
 
How come nobody sue them for not giving Conceal carry license to people with clean background check? Instead you have to show them the reason and proof to be a business owner ... Not a regular business owner can get issue to carry. The proof of carrying a lot of cash on you.. 0_0"

Yeah, it's not like we don't already have a case dealing with this subject...
 
I assume this represents a win, with Boston rendering moot the complaint by an official change of policy?
Yes and no. Boston appears to have changed their policy and Ngo was allowed to submit his application using his passport. However, they haven't updated their website to reflect the new policy and without a ruling from the court, they can change their policy back at any time.

If the MTD goes through, will you relaunch the case against the other towns with this policy?
For now we're committed to seeing this case through first. We're entitle to a judgement from the court and we intended to pursue that before taking other actions.

I'll just add these items:

This policy is shared by a number of departments and is really misguided. The passport is actually a better indication of citizenship than is a US birth certificate. The passport is absolute proof. There are no circumstances where a valid US passport is held by a foreign national. On the other hand is is very possible for someone to have a US birth certificate and NOT be a US citizen. Those are uncommon scenarios, but they do exist.

Also, there is no statutory requirement for a license applicant to prove, or even provide evidence of, their US citizenship. As long as a PD can validate someone's identification, they can determine whether if someone is a US citizen or resident alien. The proof of citizenship requirement is just another unnecessary layer that the PDs add for no good reason.
 
Another question from an ignoramus: The question of organizational/associational standing for Comm2A seems to always be a sticking point. Why is it important for Comm2A to be named as plaintiffs in these lawsuits? What would be the downside to just paying and organizing behind the scenes, with only the individual plaintiffs named?
 
Another question from an ignoramus: The question of organizational/associational standing for Comm2A seems to always be a sticking point. Why is it important for Comm2A to be named as plaintiffs in these lawsuits? What would be the downside to just paying and organizing behind the scenes, with only the individual plaintiffs named?
Great question actually.

To some degree it comes down to principle. The defendants would like to (at least publicly) marginalize us as an organization. Privately, they know better. They don't want to legitimize us and in effect give us a "seat at the table".

Although it hasn't happened yet there's always the possible that if we don't survive standing a defendant will seek to reduce the size of the legal fee recovery based upon whatever portion can be attributed to representing the organization. In reality, that's pretty minimal, so it hasn't been an issue.
 
If other towns are doing this, can you make a class out of it? Can you recruit people who have been naturalized by similar circumstances as Mr. Ngo to make a Statewide Class?
 
I think the hearing went okay, but there's no way to tell until we actually get a ruling. What's galling is Boston's assertion that the department never had a policy of refusing to accept passports as proof of citizenship. The department's position is that some ill-informed officers in the licensing unit were making this 'mistake' on their own. The problem is that this is a long-standing practice of the department. Not only has BPD documented this on their web-site, I clearly remember being told by a now retired officer when I applied for my first Boston LTC that I had to produce a birth certificate and that a passport was not acceptable. I know many other people who have been told this over the years and even decades.

A couple of things to remember here. There is no statutory requirement that an applicant prove that they're a citizen. Once a PD establishes and applicant's identity and submits their fingerprints to IDENT, they can easily determine if the person is disqualified from a license due to nationality. A birth certificate is also not dispositive of citizenship. There are a number of scenarios, although unusual, where someone may have a US birth certificate, but not be a US citizen. If someone has a valid US passport they are always a citizen.
 
We have a decision in this case. Sterns is nothing but slow in issuing orders in gun cases. This is the second time he has decided our case within 24 hrs. We obviously won because Ngo has already had his license accepted and it will be to him soon, if he doesn't already have it.

The remaining issue was whether we were entitled to a declaratory judgement and fees. On that, we failed to carry the day on the issue of mootness and while we should have, it's not strategically smart to push this mootness issue at this time. It's not the right set of facts on the fee issue to try and appeal this. Ultimately we won and smacked Boston around. I am good with that. We will be smacking around any other town that pulls the same bull shit too.
 
Back
Top Bottom