Comm2A Wins on Suitability Against Wakefield

Im no lawyer, but I skimmed the ruling. It seems that since the crimes from Canada were non-violent in the courts opinion, the guy was not a risk to public safety (or whatever the current suitability standard is). If I am right, this seems like a very significant ruling...

But for those better versed in this stuff, feel free to correct me.
 
Doesn't this put MA closer to the Shall Issue column except for the fact someone denied has to appeal to a court rather the PD to have to go to court to deny? And of course arbitrary and capricious "restrictions".
 
nhams said:
Im no lawyer, but I skimmed the ruling. It seems that since the crimes from Canada were non-violent in the courts opinion, the guy was not a risk to public safety (or whatever the current suitability standard is). If I am right, this seems like a very significant ruling...

But for those better versed in this stuff, feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
^^You're spot-on

Reptile said:
If you are not a risk to public safety, does this now mean you can not be found unsuitable?

That would be a great precedent.
Click to expand...
^^That would be the idea and what the legislature had in mind when they created the standard in 2014. How faithfully lower courts in Middlesex and elsewhere adhere to this standard is something we have to watch. And we will.

Waher said:
Doesn't this put MA closer to the Shall Issue column except for the fact someone denied has to appeal to a court rather the PD to have to go to court to deny? And of course arbitrary and capricious "restrictions".
Click to expand...
Marginally closer except that police departments still exert control over the ability to even apply for a license. We see time and time again, that if a PD doesn't want someone to have a license the PD won't accept or process the application. It's also more likely that PDs will issue more restricted licenses to people they don't like if they're unable to use public safety as a justification for finding someone 'unsuitable'.
 
Would this apply to the issue of an LTC, not just revocation? This is a huge deal to me as I was denied on suitability (non-violent arrest/dismissed in 1999) back in 2015. When I appealed the judge specifically cited "broad discretion" totally ignoring the statute's risk to public safety. In my case it's a little late, since I've moved to NH, but MA offers a lot more work options for me so it would be nice to know that moving back is an option.
 
The most significant import of this ruling is the use of the new standard. The public safety standard established in law in 2014 should have rendered the Moyer standard of "A reason, any reason, as long as the issuing authority believed it reasonable" inapplicable, however, district courts have been continuing to cite it as binding precedent because it makes their job easier and leads to a conclusion the courts like. Hopefully, this will change. Comm2a is ready the next time a district court judge cites Moyer.

It still does not fix the burden of proof problem, establish the right to confront one's accuser or address hearsay evidence, innuendo and rumor .... but it is a step in the right direction.
 
Waher said:
Doesn't this put MA closer to the Shall Issue column except for the fact someone denied has to appeal to a court rather the PD to have to go to court to deny? And of course arbitrary and capricious "restrictions".
Click to expand...
I'm fairly surprised by this story. In my experience 4-5 years ago, Wakefield was a shall issue. Something must have changed in the 2.5 years I've been out of there.

I could say that it may be related to one of my references being the owner of the tow company in town, who knows the licensing officer personally, but many others on here have related similar experiences.

Either way, great win for the good guys!
 
mwalsh9152 said:
I'm fairly surprised by this story. In my experience 4-5 years ago, Wakefield was a shall issue. Something must have changed in the 2.5 years I've been out of there.
Click to expand...

It probably usually is, but just because they usually issue an LTC doesn't mean that they're not going to be discriminatory about it or be dicks about
suitability. Most LTC holders don't walk into the PD with anything other than traffic tickets. So it's easy to say "so and so town is green" when it really
isn't. If you want to ask how a town really is about LTCs you find the gun owner that has a pre-94 DUI and a vacated 209A or three on his record, that's where
the real shit tests are.

-Mike
 
Folks, Comm2A has a different mandate than GOAL and the NRA. GOAL and the NRA lobby politicians, in an attempt to pass favorable legislation and to prevent the passage of unfavorable legislation. That requires maintaining relationships with politicians and compromise, which is pretty hard to maintain if you are suing them left, right, and center.

In contrast, Comm2A’s mission is to sue the Commonwealth of MA. Comm2A doesn’t have to worry about pissing off politicians.

Comm2A, NRA, GOAL, and SAF are all necessary and are all working for us. I don’t think it is helpful to say that one is better than the other.

I’m a life member of GOAL and the NRA. I’ve also donated to Comm2A.
 
M1911 said:
Folks, Comm2A has a different mandate than GOAL and the NRA. GOAL and the NRA lobby politicians, in an attempt to pass favorable legislation and to prevent the passage of unfavorable legislation. That requires maintaining relationships with politicians and compromise, which is pretty hard to maintain if you are suing them left, right, and center.

In contrast, Comm2A’s mission is to sue the Commonwealth of MA. Comm2A doesn’t have to worry about pissing off politicians.

Comm2A, NRA, GOAL, and SAF are all necessary and are all working for us. I don’t think it is helpful to say that one is better than the other.

I’m a life member of GOAL and the NRA. I’ve also donated to Comm2A.
Click to expand...
I'm a life member of both the NRA and GOAL as well. I believe they are necessary, and granted I don't know everything they are doing behind the scenes, but all I ever see is compromises that end in legislation that "isn't as bad as it would have been". Which in my estimation is still a long term losing battle. I'm not asking them to sue anyone, I'm asking them to defend our second amendment rights, not constantly compromise for people that won't ever stop trying to take our rights. Comm 2A on the other hand is holding people accountable for their illegal or unconstitutional actions, no compromises. When they win every gun owner in this state wins. I can't say the same for an NRA or GOAL "win".

I respect your opinion that you don't feel it's helpful. I hope you can respect my opinion. If you only have $25 to give, please give it to Comm 2A as I believe it's the better option and provides the biggest bang for the buck. If you've got plenty of money then please donate to all of the gun rights groups.
 
CDSUSA said:
I'm a life member of both the NRA and GOAL as well. I believe they are necessary, and granted I don't know everything they are doing behind the scenes, but all I ever see is compromises that end in legislation that "isn't as bad as it would have been". Which in my estimation is still a long term losing battle. I'm not asking them to sue anyone, I'm asking them to defend our second amendment rights, not constantly compromise for people that won't ever stop trying to take our rights.
Click to expand...

Here in MA, the legislature is controlled by the Democratic party and they are overwhelmingly anti-gun. The legislature well represents the voters of MA, who are mostly anti-gun. The governor is a Republican, but he is a moderate and he can't sign legislation that the Legislature won't pass (even if he wanted to, which he doesn't).

No matter how well GOAL and the NRA do their job, they will always be fighting a rear-guard action here in MA. They will rarely be able to do more than to make anti-gun legislation "less bad", because we simply don't have the votes in the MA Legislature. As long as most of the voters in MA are anti-gun, we will never have enough votes to pass something like shall-issue licensing or repeal the MA assault weapons ban. The Legislature is going to pass the laws that they want to pass -- GOAL and the NRA "not compromising" won't change that.

GOAL and the NRA don't have a magic wand to change voters opinions.
 
M1911 said:
Here in MA, the legislature is controlled by the Democratic party and they are overwhelmingly anti-gun. The legislature well represents the voters of MA, who are mostly anti-gun. The governor is a Republican, but he is a moderate and he can't sign legislation that the Legislature won't pass (even if he wanted to, which he doesn't).

No matter how well GOAL and the NRA do their job, they will always be fighting a rear-guard action here in MA. They will rarely be able to do more than to make anti-gun legislation "less bad", because we simply don't have the votes in the MA Legislature. As long as most of the voters in MA are anti-gun, we will never have enough votes to pass something like shall-issue licensing or repeal the MA assault weapons ban. The Legislature is going to pass the laws that they want to pass -- GOAL and the NRA "not compromising" won't change that.

GOAL and the NRA don't have a magic wand to change voters opinions.
Click to expand...
Agreed, that's why Comm 2A is better :) JK!
 
M1911 said:
Here in MA, the legislature is controlled by the Democratic party and they are overwhelmingly anti-gun. The legislature well represents the voters of MA, who are mostly anti-gun. The governor is a Republican, but he is a moderate and he can't sign legislation that the Legislature won't pass (even if he wanted to, which he doesn't). ...
Click to expand...

True.

M1911 said:
... No matter how well GOAL and the NRA do their job, they will always be fighting a rear-guard action here in MA. They will rarely be able to do more than to make anti-gun legislation "less bad", because we simply don't have the votes in the MA Legislature. As long as most of the voters in MA are anti-gun, we will never have enough votes to pass something like shall-issue licensing or repeal the MA assault weapons ban. The Legislature is going to pass the laws that they want to pass -- GOAL and the NRA "not compromising" won't change that. ...
Click to expand...

This is why we need some sort of a third group (Comm2A/GOAL/3rdGroup) to work on the elections side. I didn't even see a single mention on here about pro-gun candidates. So, maybe what is needed is someone to start a list with candidates, and how pro they are versus how anti they are, and work to keep or get the pro ones in and keep or remove the anti ones.

Starting point:
massachusetts primary results 2018 - Google Search
 
mwalsh9152 said:
I'm fairly surprised by this story. In my experience 4-5 years ago, Wakefield was a shall issue. Something must have changed in the 2.5 years I've been out of there.
Click to expand...
Wakefield never that great. The would not renew LTC for people with past restraining orders even if they had a valid LTC when they sought the renewal (Howard v. Police Chief of Wakefield)
“It is the policy of [the] Wakefield Police that we do not issue a license to carry a firearm to anyone who has been a defendant on a [c.] 209A order which is not an emergency order.   A judge, upon hearing the evidence in your case, found cause to issue a protective order.   Those facts do not change when an order expires or is not renewed.”
Click to expand...

CDSUSA said:
OK, Amazon donations aren't nearly enough. I should have done it awhile ago, but I finally signed up for a recurring monthly donation. These guys are better than the NRA and GOAL combined!
Click to expand...
Revenue received form Comm2A's participation in Amazon's Associate program were never donations and were never intended to be in lieu of donations. In any event, we've been dropped from the program - 'cuz gun.
 
Coyote33 said:
This is why we need some sort of a third group (Comm2A/GOAL/3rdGroup) to work on the elections side.
Click to expand...
Maybe what's needed is a state-wide PAC type organization to raise money for and support pro-gun, pro-liberty candidates.
I didn't even see a single mention on here about pro-gun candidates.
Click to expand...
If by "here" you mean NES, then to put it bluntly, you ain't looking. There are multiple threads on pro-gun candidates mounting primary campaigns for governor, AG, and Congressional seats. Sure there could be more, but they're there.
So, maybe what is needed is someone to start a list with candidates, and how pro they are versus how anti they are, and work to keep or get the pro ones in and keep or remove the anti ones.
Click to expand...
Again, GOAL does some of this in rating candidates, but not so much in raising money for candidates. Not sure if fund-raising for candidates might conflict with their lobbying role.

Let's not bash GOAL and Comm2A for not doing what's not their strength to do.
 
Curious minds want to know if any cases are being brought in the case where someone has received a restriction on a class A LTC (eliminating the right to ACTUALLY carry) since the new law that went into place says the LO must put into writing why an individual had restrictions placed on their LTC.
 
kevin9 said:
Maybe what's needed is a state-wide PAC type organization to raise money for and support pro-gun, pro-liberty candidates.
If by "here" you mean NES, then to put it bluntly, you ain't looking. There are multiple threads on pro-gun candidates mounting primary campaigns for governor, AG, and Congressional seats. Sure there could be more, but they're there.
Again, GOAL does some of this in rating candidates, but not so much in raising money for candidates. Not sure if fund-raising for candidates might conflict with their lobbying role.

Let's not bash GOAL and Comm2A for not doing what's not their strength to do.
Click to expand...

I agree. No, I didn't mean governor, AG, or Congress, but MA legislature. Not bashing anybody, just saying there needs to be a separate organization doing this.
 
M1911 said:
Folks, Comm2A has a different mandate than GOAL and the NRA. GOAL and the NRA lobby politicians, in an attempt to pass favorable legislation and to prevent the passage of unfavorable legislation. That requires maintaining relationships with politicians and compromise, which is pretty hard to maintain if you are suing them left, right, and center.

In contrast, Comm2A’s mission is to sue the Commonwealth of MA. Comm2A doesn’t have to worry about pissing off politicians.

Comm2A, NRA, GOAL, and SAF are all necessary and are all working for us. I don’t think it is helpful to say that one is better than the other.

I’m a life member of GOAL and the NRA. I’ve also donated to Comm2A.
Click to expand...

Very well said and something that needs constant explaining. Different missions and goals.

Also a life member of NRA, GOAL and SAF plus monthly contributor to Comm2A.

M1911 said:
Here in MA, the legislature is controlled by the Democratic party and they are overwhelmingly anti-gun. The legislature well represents the voters of MA, who are mostly anti-gun. The governor is a Republican, but he is a moderate and he can't sign legislation that the Legislature won't pass (even if he wanted to, which he doesn't).

No matter how well GOAL and the NRA do their job, they will always be fighting a rear-guard action here in MA. They will rarely be able to do more than to make anti-gun legislation "less bad", because we simply don't have the votes in the MA Legislature. As long as most of the voters in MA are anti-gun, we will never have enough votes to pass something like shall-issue licensing or repeal the MA assault weapons ban. The Legislature is going to pass the laws that they want to pass -- GOAL and the NRA "not compromising" won't change that.

GOAL and the NRA don't have a magic wand to change voters opinions.
Click to expand...

Amen, again very well stated. For MA all NRA or GOAL can do is try to keep things from getting much worse. When gun owners WHO CARE (vs. the thousands who own them but don't care) vote differently and overturn the Dem run state with Constitutionalists, only then can we expect NRA and GOAL to make real headway.

Knuckle Dragger said:
Revenue received form Comm2A's participation in Amazon's Associate program were never donations and were never intended to be in lieu of donations. In any event, we've been dropped from the program - 'cuz gun.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't know that. Just ordered from Azn twice in the past week with the link. Didn't know that you now get nothing for it. Can't say that I'm surprised that they did that however.
 
​
Revenue received form Comm2A's participation in Amazon's Associate program were never donations and were never intended to be in lieu of donations. In any event, we've been dropped from the program - 'cuz gun.[/QUOTE]

when did this happen??? i'll change my amazon account next time i'm on there, but what happens to the money in the time lapse??? does amazon just take it???

does this deserve an announcement/ seperate thread on nes???????????
 
Rob Boudrie said:
They did but, until this case, the courts chose to ignore the change.
Click to expand...
I got denied LTC in Wakefield for a BCD that happened 20 years ago (refusing the dangerous anthrax vaccine). I had to settle for a FID. Glad this guy triumphed. From what I understand, Wakefield denies LTC for any past restraining orders as well. Most of them are bogus but that does not matter to the Wakefield PD. How did they find out about that guy's problem in Canada? Did he open his trap and volunteer information that he should have kept to himself?
 

Similar threads

Wave of lawsuits against US gun makers raises hope of end to mass shootings
Replies
8
Views
371
Woodsloafer
W
Preliminary injunction against D.C. std-cap mag ban denied
Replies
10
Views
378
mcshooter
mcshooter
Charges dismissed against white couple that drew gun on Black mother, teen in parking lot dispute
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Someone unclear on the concept ;)
Replies
1
Views
226
Woodstone
Woodstone
Wasn't Bruce Tarr on our side at one point?
Replies
24
Views
642
general disorder
G
Back
Top Bottom