- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Decision date of DC plus 6 months.
-
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.
Davis v. Grimes
- Thread starter terraformer
- Start date
Decision date of DC plus 6 months.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
District court. If this has to go to SCOTUS, it's another year on top of that. But that's not likely.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Maybe within 6 months. But it's a very open question how long this takes.
You're not kidding. Kachalsky was decided in the district court about a month after briefing was completed. Palmer has been waiting in DC since 2009. My SWAG is January or February, but a cert grant in Woolard would change everything, obviously.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
We are waiting for a decision.
Ironic how restrictions make a License To Carry anything but such a license.
Citation of Supplemental Authority Filed
Yesterday Comm2A filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Davis v. Grimes call the court's attention to the recent decisions in Peruta v. San Diego and Morris v. U.S Army Corps of Engineers.
Follow Comm2A on Twitter for timely updates and information.
Yesterday Comm2A filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Davis v. Grimes call the court's attention to the recent decisions in Peruta v. San Diego and Morris v. U.S Army Corps of Engineers.
Follow Comm2A on Twitter for timely updates and information.
if the decision is in favor of plantiff, how would this affect everyone else in the commonwealth who has a restricted LTC-A? would it make the restrictions null and void throughout Mass? or would it only affect the 4 towns where the CLEO's are defendants?
A ruling on the motions came down earlier today - next round due April 26th:
Davis v. Grimes
Order denying cross motions.
Davis v. Grimes
Order denying cross motions.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Please don't ask for our opinions on this as we can't provide them, but rest assured we have them, opinions that is.
Just take this as the delay it obviously is. Also, don't read into this from a pro/con 2A perspective. You will get it wrong.
You know at the beginning of a sailboat race how the sailboats jockey around each other under the start? Think of the start as the trial. The lawyers are still in the jockeying around stage.
No, I don't think he's trying to 'wiggle' out of anything, I think he's being a diligent jurist. A judge shouldn't decide an issue on constitutional grounds if there's another way to come to an answer. The problem is you have two smart lawyers (or more in this case) putting their best efforts out there. But judges are pretty smart too and tend to think through issues for themselves, as this one did. The easy way out for the judge would have been to find in favor of the towns or us and let the First Circuit deal with it.
Civil cases like this don't typically go to 'trial' because the facts aren't in dispute. Both sides file their motions and there's usually a hearing where the sides present oral arguments to the judge. This happened in September. And it may happen again based upon a new round of motions.
Our expectation was that the judge would grant the motion from one party and deny the motion from the other party and it would be over - at least in district court. Instead, the judge thought about it, did his own homework, and is now asking the parties to provide the court with additional arguments.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 565
- Likes
- 76
So many laws. Municipalities across the nation are opening themselves up to these judgments because of the flat out poorly written laws. From no open carry in CA, to this blanket policy on first time license applicant restrictions. They deserve everything they get.
Nice work comm2a.
Nice work comm2a.
It is an interesting read for sure. In Section E the judge states that:
While the case certainly could be decided for the Plaintiffs strictly on state law grounds, I'm having a hard time seeing how the case could be settled in favor of the Defendants based solely on state law grounds. That is, if the judge ruled in favor of Defendants on state law grounds, it leaves unanswered the initial Constitutional question.
I see several possible ways the judge could move forward after the next round of briefing. I don't have a lot of experience with certifying state questions to the SJC, but that would certainly add an interesting twist.
While the case certainly could be decided for the Plaintiffs strictly on state law grounds, I'm having a hard time seeing how the case could be settled in favor of the Defendants based solely on state law grounds. That is, if the judge ruled in favor of Defendants on state law grounds, it leaves unanswered the initial Constitutional question.
I see several possible ways the judge could move forward after the next round of briefing. I don't have a lot of experience with certifying state questions to the SJC, but that would certainly add an interesting twist.
Ah, that brings back memories. That quote will forever be etched in the Massachusetts pantheon of judicial one-liners.
I liked that one too.
Garys
NES Member
The judge makes some good points. The problem I see with adjudicating this in state court is one of standing. The plaintiffs got their LTCs, just not the ones they wanted. IIRC, it's been decided in the past at the state level that a flat out denial can be appealed, but not the type of license issued.
Or, I'm reading this completely wrong.
Or, I'm reading this completely wrong.
It would appear that way, yes. It's a joke, but not the laughing type.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,531
- Likes
- 33,562
Right up there with "Requires considerable analytical strain" from Fletcher v. Haas
What does that even mean???
Nevermind. Put in context, I get it.
Nevermind. Put in context, I get it.
Last edited:
