Davis v. Grimes

[terraformer]

Amazingly, there was no thread on this case.

The case files are at Davis v. Grimes - Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. (comm2a.org) and I wanted to post an update. We filed for Summary Judgement this week. They filed one in turn.

Read the Defendants one, it's a doozy.

 

[terraformer]

BTW: Here is a preview of the defendant's MSJ.

Moreover, if not with a licensing scheme, how else are local officials going to determine not only that those who possess concealed weapons are law-abiding, responsible citizens, but also that those same individuals have the common sense not to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon while walking down Main Street.14

*14 This kind of display – even if permitted with an unrestricted LTC – can hardly be reconciled with the notion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in the defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635 (emphasis added).

 

[DemonChronicles]

Good reading!

 

[lancecolonel]

my comment:

"This
interpretation of the Second Amendment torpedoes Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge since, as
Plaintiffs concede, they have received a License To Carry Firearms from the Defendants which
allows them to own and operate a firearm including a handgun in their homes and to carry a
concealed gun to-and-from the permitted restriction, e.g. Target & Hunting."

is it me or does their own argument now give restricted licenses the ability to cc? just join a range and leave a range bag in the car at all times.......right?

 

[perry1386]

Donation sent to Comm2a


(I haven't donated in awhile, this is good motivation)

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

my comment:



is it me or does their own argument now give restricted licenses the ability to cc? just join a range and leave a range bag in the car at all times.......right?

Sort of. The to and from aspect has kind of always been there. They have an ulterior motive for making this concession as we'll probably see later.

Donation sent to Comm2a


(I haven't donated in awhile, this is good motivation)

Thank You! I saw it come in a little while ago.

 

[xero2099]

my comment:



is it me or does their own argument now give restricted licenses the ability to cc? just join a range and leave a range bag in the car at all times.......right?

was about to say the same thing

 

[turbo89]

Can someone with a law background give us non-lawyer types a summary of what's pertinent?

 

[economist]

Wow. So according to the Weymouth and Peabody police chiefs, the only people suitable for an unrestricted LTC are those with the "common sense" not to exercise the right to carry.

 

[Fizz226]

is it me or does their own argument now give restricted licenses the ability to cc? just join a range and leave a range bag in the car at all times.......right?

Sort of. The to and from aspect has kind of always been there. They have an ulterior motive for making this concession as we'll probably see later.

I always thought this was partially a side effect of the lack of strong distinction between "carry" and "transport", but also because concealed carrying while hunting was considered "OK" under the LTC rules (hunting / wildlife rules are another story).

I thought I saw someone say Boston was using "Target & Hunting; No Concealed Carry" as the restriction to "clarify" this...

 

[terraformer]

I always thought this was partially a side effect of the lack of strong distinction between "carry" and "transport", but also because concealed carrying while hunting was considered "OK" under the LTC rules (hunting / wildlife rules are another story).

I thought I saw someone say Boston was using "Target & Hunting; No Concealed Carry" as the restriction to "clarify" this...

Boston does do this.

 

[soam]

Boston does do this.

So in that case, the BS excuse of "you can carry to and from your target/hunting activities" doesn't apply. Could this be introduced during the hearing on the MSJs in order to debunk that particular claim of the defendants?

 

[terraformer]

So in that case, the BS excuse of "you can carry to and from your target/hunting activities" doesn't apply. Could this be introduced during the hearing on the MSJs in order to debunk that particular claim of the defendants?

No, because Boston is not Weymouth or Peabody. Each town currently gets to set their own policies. Peabody and Weymouth have now owned this policy, for this week at least, and this is what applies to their residents, again, for this week at least. This interpretation stems from the confusion between transport and carry, of which there is plenty as neither is defined although the latter was defined via case law to be pretty broadly interpreted as damned near any possession outside the home.

 

[soam]

No, because Boston is not Weymouth or Peabody. Each town currently gets to set their own policies. Peabody and Weymouth have now owned this policy, for this week at least, and this is what applies to their residents, again, for this week at least. This interpretation stems from the confusion between transport and carry, of which there is plenty as neither is defined although the latter was defined via case law to be pretty broadly interpreted as damned near any possession outside the home.

Ugh. I really hope this case leads to eliminating all of the arbitrary restriction BS. It's been said before, but the thing that really gets to me is that I, as a holder of an unrestricted LTC A, can carry in any of these communities that routinely restrict their residents' LTCs, while the residents cannot. Yeah, yeah, preaching to the choir, but it's just so damn frustrating.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Is there a judge assigned to the case and what do we know about this judge in terms of how likely he/she is to actually apply the law correctly as opposed to denying the claims and then working backward into formulating an opinion that supports the decision?

Also, is Moore v. Madigan the only Federal Appellate Level decision with regard to extending 2A outside the home?

I applaud Comm 2A for putting together a very well reasoned argument in their petition for summary judgement. I don't see how any intellectually honest person can argue that the right of self defense stops at the threshold to your residence. Sadly, I am not optimistic that a district court judge in Boston will see it that way, despite the sound reasoning.

Am I correct in my reading of the defendants' petition for summary judgement that it raises several issues which have already been rejected by the Supreme Court in Heller and MacDonald? For instance, arguing that the Supreme Court has not recognized 2A as a fundamental right. Their filing looks to be willfully dishonest and in bad faith.

 

[terraformer]

Is there a judge assigned to the case and what do we know about this judge in terms of how likely he/she is to actually apply the law correctly as opposed to denying the claims and then working backward into formulating an opinion that supports the decision?

Also, is Moore v. Madigan the only Federal Appellate Level decision with regard to extending 2A outside the home?

I applaud Comm 2A for putting together a very well reasoned argument in their petition for summary judgement. I don't see how any intellectually honest person can argue that the right of self defense stops at the threshold to your residence. Sadly, I am not optimistic that a district court judge in Boston will see it that way, despite the sound reasoning.

Am I correct in my reading of the defendants' petition for summary judgement that it raises several issues which have already been rejected by the Supreme Court in Heller and MacDonald? For instance, arguing that the Supreme Court has not recognized 2A as a fundamental right. Their filing looks to be willfully dishonest and in bad faith.

Judge Saylor. As for how he rules, your guess is as good as mine but it doesn't matter. These days supposedly pro gun judges are ruling against folks because the circuits, and CA1 is no different, have polluted the case law and the districts are bound by precedent.

As for what it says, there isn't enough peyote in the world for me to fully understand the strategy employed here so I am not bothering to try. Sadly, I don't think it matters what they say, nothing will change until SCOTUS gets a carry case. I suspect the state (who didn't file anything) is simply going to file a response preserving some material for an appeal in CA1, which I suspect they expect they will win.

 

[perry1386]

...nothing will change until SCOTUS gets a carry case...

I think this is VERY true and depending on the Justices on SCOTUS it may or may not be heard.

 

[NewGuyRay]

I think this is VERY true and depending on the Justices on SCOTUS it may or may not be heard.

So we certainly need to get one to SCOTUS before one of the conservative members dies or retires. Would either "richards v. prieto" or "Sykes" in CA be a good candidate to make it to SCOTUS?

 

[jar]

So we certainly need to get one to SCOTUS before one of the conservative members dies or retires. Would either "richards v. prieto" or "Sykes" in CA be a good candidate to make it to SCOTUS?

Woolard in Maryland is next on the list. The petition to SCOTUS to hear the case was filed last week. The petition will likely be considered at the so called 'long conference', the first conference back from SCOTUS' summer break on September 30th. So we'll probably know in October if SCOTUS will take the case, and if they do, we'll likely get a decision in June 2014.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

So we certainly need to get one to SCOTUS before one of the conservative members dies or retires. Would either "richards v. prieto" or "Sykes" in CA be a good candidate to make it to SCOTUS?

Richards v. Prieto IS Sykes. Sheriff McGuiness knuckled under and was dropped from the suit.

Richards v. Prieto is one of three RTC cases currently being considered by the 9th Circuit and until that court rules there's no question of it going to SCOUTS. However, as of last week Woollard (MD) has a cert. petition pending. A cert. decision is likely in the fall when the Supreme Court is back in session.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Richards v. Prieto IS Sykes. Sheriff McGuiness knuckled under and was dropped from the suit.

Richards v. Prieto is one of three RTC cases currently being considered by the 9th Circuit and until that court rules there's no question of it going to SCOUTS. However, as of last week Woollard (MD) has a cert. petition pending. A cert. decision is likely in the fall when the Supreme Court is back in session.

I know it's near impossible to predict but are we hopeful of cert being granted? Is it more likely for SCOTUS to let the issue percolate longer and see a few more appellate level decisions first?

 

[pastera]

Read each of the motions

This interpretation of the Second Amendment torpedoes Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge since

Did they get an eighth grader to write that? I assume they are looking to fail or simply relying on the court's bias.

$25 dropped in the hat - not much but what's available right now without fighting the finance department...

 

[BostonGuns58]

As a Boston resident I could not thanks comm2a enough and I have donated of course. I have been in situations where carrying would have made me feel better but im not a law breaker so I don't. Hopefully, the judge sees the foolishness of this restriction and lifts it for everyone who suffers in Boston. Thanks again comm2a

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I know it's near impossible to predict but are we hopeful of cert being granted? Is it more likely for SCOTUS to let the issue percolate longer and see a few more appellate level decisions first?

Sure, I'm always hopeful that any of 'our' cases is granted cert. But so far we've been disappointed. Trying to get into the heads of the SC is impossible and every time I or anyone else thinks they know what the court will do on any issue they're wrong more often than right. All our side can do is to continue to serve up good quality cases. Cases with good plaintiffs and good fact patterns. Although this is a deliberate process that can't be rushed, we hope that a 'good' case gets there before some half-assed attorney gets his case there first. Bad cases make bad law and part of this race is getting in ahead of some of the lower quality cases.

 

[voidoid]

There was a hearing scheduled for this past Friday- can we get an update?

 

[terraformer]

There was a hearing scheduled for this past Friday- can we get an update?

Sure. It was a very big non event actually. Nothing funny or stupid like in some other hearings. Nothing legally "Wow!" either. Statements of note is the judge knows the case will be appealed regardless of how he rules. Also that he will feel uncomfortable ruling either way because of a lack of guidance from higher courts. These are not statements from someone actively working against us nor actively working for us either. It will likely be a fair ruling either way it goes and one side will appeal. We are prepared to appeal for sure.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Now that the hearing on motions for summary judgement has taken place, what is next? I'm not familiar with the process for this type of action. Could you fill us in.

Was this hearing what we would consider to be the actual "trial" in the matter. Does the process just now consist of the judge granting one side's motion and that is the decision. Then we are on to the appeal? When do we expect the ruling? Finally, how long does it take for the inevitable appeal to be heard?

Sorry for all the questions, but while I am not overly optimistic; as a restricted LTC holder my only hope is for this to succeed or for my chief to die and be replace with someone more favorable.

 

[terraformer]

We wait for a decision someone will appeal. No more hearings or trial. Most likely anyway.

 

[jar]

Now that the hearing on motions for summary judgement has taken place, what is next? I'm not familiar with the process for this type of action. Could you fill us in.

Was this hearing what we would consider to be the actual "trial" in the matter. Does the process just now consist of the judge granting one side's motion and that is the decision. Then we are on to the appeal? When do we expect the ruling? Finally, how long does it take for the inevitable appeal to be heard?

Sorry for all the questions, but while I am not overly optimistic; as a restricted LTC holder my only hope is for this to succeed or for my chief to die and be replace with someone more favorable.

A motion for summary judgement basically is saying, 'both sides agree on the facts, so we don't need a trial, just go straight to the judge deciding the legal question, here's why we should win'. It's possible, though very unlikely, that the judge will deny both sides MSJs and go on to a trial. Most likely the judge will grant one side's motion and deny the other in a written decision. Either way it goes, the notice of appeal will likely be filed before the ink is dry on the decision. Also, the decision will likely set off a flurry of "notices of supplemental authority" from the winning side. These are basically a letter saying, 'such and such court decided a similar issue this way. they're totally right, we should win'.

 

[LTCRN]

We wait for a decision someone will appeal. No more hearings or trial. Most likely anyway.

Seeing an appeal is likely, any idea on how long the process will take before a final decision is rendered?