Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture

Garys said:
You never see a no LTOR sign and most people, including most police officers, don't know that it's legal or under what circumstances.
Click to expand...

Most people also don't know that you can take a left or right on a red arrow, too. Especially in Westfield! Grrrr - these are always the people in front of me!
 
tuna said:
Most people also don't know that you can take a left or right on a red arrow, too.
Click to expand...
Taken at face value, that's correct with the proper contextual limitations.

You may take a turn after stop at a red arrow only if the turn isn't otherwise prohibited; e.g., you can't take the turn if the intersection is posted "no turn on red," and you may make a left on red arrow only if turning from a one-way street onto another one-way street. And if there is both a red circle and a left red arrow, no left turn until it turns green.
 
We're really crapping up this thread, so to put an end to the RTOR issue, the following is from the MA RMV Rules Of The Road:

Motor Vehicle Signals
Traffic signals are usually three round lights: red, yellow, and green, from top to bottom. There are also other types of signals, such as single flashing lights or colored arrows. Steady Red
A steady red light means “stop.” Do not go until the light turns green. You can make a right turn on a red light only after you come to a complete stop and yield to pedestrians or other vehicles in your path. You may not turn on red if a NO TURN ON RED sign is posted. You can turn left on a red light when driving on a one-way street and turning left onto another one-way street. Stop and yield to pedestrians and other vehicles before turning. Steady Red Arrow
A steady red arrow means the same as a steady red, circular signal (see the preceding Steady Red section). However, it only applies to vehicles going in the direction of the arrow. The same rules for “turning on red” apply in
Massachusetts. However, when driving out-of-state, this may not be true because different states have different laws. Flashing Red
A flashing red light means the same as a STOP sign. Come to a complete stop. Obey the right-of-way laws and proceed when it is safe. If there is a white stop line or crosswalk line, you must stop before the line. If there are no lines, you must stop as close to the intersection as needed to see traffic in both directions. Do not enter the intersection until after coming to a complete stop.
Click to expand...
 
No matter how strong or obvious you think your case is, there is no telling what a court will do until the ruling is handed down. Even so, this came as more than a bit of a surprise.

We will win some (Fletcher v. Hass), lose some (Chardin amicus), and some will move on to appeal. But, Comm2A will not be discouraged from its mission by a loss of what we feel should have gone the other way.
 
Last edited:
yanici said:
We're really crapping up this thread, so to put an end to the RTOR issue, the following is from the MA RMV Rules Of The Road:
Motor Vehicle Signals
Traffic signals are usually three round lights: red, yellow, and green, from top to bottom. There are also other types of signals, such as single flashing lights or colored arrows. Steady Red
A steady red light means “stop.” Do not go until the light turns green. You can make a right turn on a red light only after you come to a complete stop and yield to pedestrians or other vehicles in your path. You may not turn on red if a NO TURN ON RED sign is posted. You can turn left on a red light when driving on a one-way street and turning left onto another one-way street. Stop and yield to pedestrians and other vehicles before turning. Steady Red Arrow
A steady red arrow means the same as a steady red, circular signal (see the preceding Steady Red section). However, it only applies to vehicles going in the direction of the arrow. The same rules for “turning on red” apply in
Massachusetts. However, when driving out-of-state, this may not be true because different states have different laws. Flashing Red
A flashing red light means the same as a STOP sign. Come to a complete stop. Obey the right-of-way laws and proceed when it is safe. If there is a white stop line or crosswalk line, you must stop before the line. If there are no lines, you must stop as close to the intersection as needed to see traffic in both directions. Do not enter the intersection until after coming to a complete stop.
​
Click to expand...

The Massachusetts Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices says otherwise:

3. Steady red indications shall have the following meanings:
c. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW indication may not enter the intersection
to make the movement indicated by such arrow, and unless entering the intersection to
make such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time,
shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall
remain standing until an indication to make the movement indicated by such arrow is
shown.
​

But back on topic... sorry to hear about the decision on the case. I am looking forward to seeing the appeal.
 
terraformer said:
Just an update. The new judge, a republican appointee, handed us a loss today. We will be filing an appeal.

See http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/104-jarvis for the order.

Let me note, there are strategic losses and tactical losses. Don't assume one or the other.
Click to expand...

So because the government didn't coerce them into violating rights they can't be held liable? So the government can allow a private entity to violate rights for them so that it absolves both of liability? Is that right? I'm not sure how else to take it. The court referred to it as 'property deprivation' and 'violating the owners rights'...
 
JackOfAllTrades said:
The Massachusetts Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices says otherwise:

3. Steady red indications shall have the following meanings:
c. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW indication may not enter the intersection
to make the movement indicated by such arrow, and unless entering the intersection to
make such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time,
shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall
remain standing until an indication to make the movement indicated by such arrow is
shown.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the heck that means.
 
Here is the actual ruling from the court....

http://comm2a.org/images/PDFs/jarvis_order.pdf

Bottom line....if your a MA resident and your guns are seized by the police IMMEDIATELY have them transferred to someone you know and trust!

Get them out of the hands of the Police because they have this sweetheart deal with this company....

The company is like a tow truck yard...they get your property, kill you with their fees then auction you weapons off to the lowest bidder to cover you "costs". And I wonder who the get to attend those "auction".....

Thank God I don't live in Mass.....sorry guys!
 
Tracer1951 said:
Here is the actual ruling from the court....

http://comm2a.org/images/PDFs/jarvis_order.pdf

Bottom line....if your a MA resident and your guns are seized by the police IMMEDIATELY have them transferred to someone you know and trust!

Get them out of the hands of the Police because they have this sweetheart deal with this company....

The company is like a tow truck yard...they get your property, kill you with their fees then auction you weapons off to the lowest bidder to cover you "costs". And I wonder who the get to attend those "auction".....

Thank God I don't live in Mass.....sorry guys!
Click to expand...
And GOAL gladly accepts advertising from this "tow yard" - one of the few things (perhaps the only thing) they do that I disagree with.
 
Most cities regulate the price of the tow of police initiated tows, don't they? How is that an apt analogy with the unregulated yet monopolistic pricing of VV?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
And GOAL gladly accepts advertising from this "tow yard" - one of the few things (perhaps the only thing) they do that I disagree with.
Click to expand...

QUOTE=Rob Boudrie;4162967]And GOAL gladly accepts advertising from this "tow yard" - one of the few things (perhaps the only thing) they do that I disagree with.[/QUOTE]

.. some insight on the company and the owner

Guns Wanted
We Buy...
Colts - Old Rifles - Winchesters
Double Barrel Shotguns
European Guns - Antique Guns
Military Guns and Swords
At home appointments may be arranged
P. G. Dowd Firearms
(508) 366-1999
Peter G. Dowd
30 Years Experience
Fully Licensed
Fully Insured

Village Vault is a wholly owned subsidiary of Village Gun Shop, Inc., a state and federally licensed firearms dealer with bonded and insured public warehouse facilities for firearms storage at 7 Belmont St. (Route 9), Northborough, MA.

Peter G. Dowd is a nationally recognized expert on modern and antique firearms and collectibles. Mr. Dowd has over 30 years experience in the firearms business. He has worked in firearms manufacturing as well as retail, wholesale, and law enforcement sales. He was an early pioneer of firearms auctions and he has conducted appraisals for the courts, insurance companies and numerous estate and private collections. On a local level Mr. Dowd, as President of the Village Vault, is in contact with and has provided services to nearly 100 Massachusetts Police Departments. He is an associate member of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Central Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association.


One stop shopping... police seize..., he provides a "service" to the police and gets the weapons... then he fees the owners $$$ and "acquires" the gun... after which he auctions them off....(and somehow ALWAYs looses money on the sale???).. However this is perfectly legal by MA law so no harm no fowl !

Just another businessman providing a service to the Police and the gun owners of MA!
 
Last edited:
140 129D says...
Such person, or his legal representative, shall have the right, at any time up to one year after said delivery or surrender, to transfer such firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to any licensed dealer or any other person legally permitted to purchase or take possession of such firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition and upon notification in writing by the purchaser or transferee and the former owner, the licensing authority shall within ten days deliver such firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to the transferee or purchaser and due care shall be observed by the licensing authority in the receipt and holding of any such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun and ammunition.
Click to expand...
Specifically... the licensing authority shall within ten days deliver such... If VV is where such a person would go to receive delivery of the firearms, then it is serving a "public function" as defined in this paragraph. VV, if they make delivery is acting as an agent of the licensing authority and the judge needs to reevaluate the public function test.
 
As as separate issue from the case ....

If you own more guns than you care to lose, you should always have good relations with one FFL who you can send over to the PD to get your guns. Some PDs will cooperate (the one in my home town reportedly refers people to a decent FFL), whereas others will call Dowd and say "please hurry, he is sending his designated FFL" if they get wind your FFL is coming. Although some departments may be vindictive, it's often a matter of paperwork - Dowd has a system that makes it very easy for the departments. I know of one very solidly "green" department that subscribes to the "let Dowd take care of it" mentality.
 
terraformer said:
Just an update. The new judge, a republican appointee, handed us a loss today. We will be filing an appeal.

See http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/104-jarvis for the order.

Let me note, there are strategic losses and tactical losses. Don't assume one or the other.
Click to expand...

B-b-but we have to vote a straight R ticket otherwise the D's will appoint bad judges! [rolleyes]

Judge Young is an enemy of freedom.
 
Judicial abdication. Everything is presumably lawful, and rather than looking at facts, some ridiculous 'test' is used which unsurprisingly finds things to be just fine.
 
After I read the MTD ruling, I read the decision as a jump ball resting on who does the property seizing, with very little tipping the scales in Village Vault's favor. In my opinion, this was the result of a reluctance on Judge Young's part to be responsible for expanding law, which is best left to the circuit to do. Expanding the MA Dist. jurisprudence on what makes someone a state actor is no small decision of law and would make waves well outside 2A litigation circles.

Result on appeal is anyone's guess, but I certainly don't think it will be a waste of time and the chances of winning to me are, if not likely, well worth the attempt.

exodious said:
B-b-but we have to vote a straight R ticket otherwise the D's will appoint bad judges! [rolleyes]

Judge Young is an enemy of freedom.
Click to expand...
I actually have a great deal of respect for him, despite this loss.
Bonesinium said:
Judicial abdication. Everything is presumably lawful, and rather than looking at facts, some ridiculous 'test' is used which unsurprisingly finds things to be just fine.
Click to expand...

I think some of you guys read way too much into who appointed the judge. He was a Republican appointee, sure--but a Reagan appointee. Don't forget that there's a vein of conservative legal thought that judges should stay out of as much as possible and most matters are best left for the democratic process--what libertarians call judicial abdication.
 
Last edited:
OfficerObie59 said:
In my opinion, this was the result of a reluctance on Judge Young's part to be responsible for expanding law, which is best left to the circuit to do. Expanding the MA Dist. jurisprudence on what makes someone a state actor is no small decision of law and would make waves well outside 2A litigation circles.
Click to expand...

I see it the opposite of that. He didn't want to expand??? No, it read like he didn't want to adhere to LIMITATIONS!


I think some of you guys read way too much into who appointed the judge. He was a Republican appointee, sure--but a Reagan appointee. Don't forget that there's a vein of conservative legal thought that judges should stay out of as much as possible and most matters are best left for the democratic process--what libertarians call judicial abdication.
Click to expand...

I read exactly nothing into who appointed him as I had exactly no idea until you mentioned it here. Some people definitely read into judges based on appointment. I certainly didn't here though.

As for judicial abdication, that is when judges skirt constitutional arguments and ignore facts in favor of presuming all legislation to be constitutional and using 'tests' to conclude exactly that...as opposed to facts and what the constitution actually says. The only real use for judges in this matter is to do specifically what they refuse to.
 

Similar threads

True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets
Replies
24
Views
472
drgrant
drgrant
muzzle device on a barrel over 16
Replies
2
Views
139
MAJoe
M
City of Chicago sues Glock Inc. over 'facilitating' illegal gun conversions: The firearms can be turned into machine guns for as little as $20
Replies
25
Views
493
jkelly1229
J
Colorado gun group sues state over 'ghost gun' ban
Replies
1
Views
318
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
ATF Report Undermines Left’s Hysteria Over So-Called ‘Gun Show Loophole’
Replies
0
Views
165
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom