Davis v. Grimes

[Chevy 2 65]

is the right not also in the state constitution?
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[terraformer]

Yes, there was a hearing. Snoozer. MSJs taken back under advisement. Now we wait.

 

[jar]

is the right not also in the state constitution?
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Not really:
"A law forbidding the keeping by individuals of arms that were used in the militia service might then have interfered with the effectiveness of the militia and thus offended the art. 17 right. But that situation no longer exists; our militia, of which the backbone is the National Guard, is now equipped and supported by public funds. See, e.g., G. L. c. 33, Section 101 (payment by Commonwealth for clothing and equipment of units of its military forces). Moreover, the statute at bar is part of a large regulatory scheme to promote the public safety, [Note 3] and there is nothing to suggest that, even in early times, due regulation of possession or carrying of firearms, short of some sweeping prohibition, would have been thought to be an improper curtailment of individual liberty or to undercut the militia system." Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886 (1976)

 

[terraformer]

there is nothing to suggest that, even in early times, due regulation of possession or carrying of firearms, short of some sweeping prohibition, would have been thought to be an improper curtailment of individual liberty or to undercut the militia system.

In the early times Boston Common was a shooting range and men were required to take their muskets to church and on all travel. The tory militia (as opposed to the Kings troops) mustered in Boston after the failed attempt to disarm the Patriots. Although Boston became a british garrison, this was because of the harbor and the pre-existing attraction to the city by Tories and not the other way around.

Nor could General Gage raiding the stores in Lexington and Concord be considered "a sweeping prohibition". The General was not attempting to seize individually owned arms or powder, but the powder store possessed by the continental militia. The militia of the Loyalist Tories in Boston, Cambridge and south of the city were never disarmed, nor were individuals ever disarmed by Gage. The efforts towards individual disarmament did not begin in ernest much later in the revolution and the British tended to target hot spots of patriot sympathizers instead of simply disarming everyone. The closest the Commonwealth has ever come to a sweeping prohibition was the 1970s where they attempted to ban all guns shorter than 16" (handguns).

That court is the most intellectually dishonest group of elitists. There is not a single voice of reason on that court that causes them to have to think even the least bit about their biases and bigotry. So they turn out trash like Comm v. Davis and Comm v. McGowan without a second thought on how absurd they appear.

 

[JTK]

Any update on this? Last thing I'm seeing on the website is from the end of May

 

[jar]

Any update on this? Last thing I'm seeing on the website is from the end of May

It generally takes six months to a year to get a decision after the motions are taken under advisement. I wouldn't expect an update until close to the end of the year at the earliest.

 

[terraformer]

Any update on this? Last thing I'm seeing on the website is from the end of May

Former MSJ taken under advisement. Nothing to update.

- - - Updated - - -

It generally takes six months to a year to get a decision after the motions are taken under advisement. I wouldn't expect an update until close to the end of the year at the earliest.

More likely next may.

 

[admcd]

The wheels of (in)justice grind slowly. Looking forward to reading the logic (or lack there of) when this finally comes out.

 

[r1dermon]

Unless I'm mistaken, it would appear that the plaintiff was issued his unrestricted license on the 18th of July.

http://michellawyers.com/davis-v-grimes/

Link at the top of the court document filed by the defense presumably.

 

[terraformer]

Unless I'm mistaken, it would appear that the plaintiff was issued his unrestricted license on the 18th of July.

http://michellawyers.com/davis-v-grimes/

Link at the top of the court document filed by the defense presumably.

Yup, we knew this was going to happen. We have new plaintiffs to replace the ones falling out but we could always use more in these two towns, Peabody and Weymouth.

ETA: We are forever grateful to Mr. Lobao who helped make this case happen.

 

[jar]

Yup, we knew this was going to happen. We have new plaintiffs to replace the ones falling out but we could always use more.

Note that the last event in the case before that was replacing the old chief as defendant with the new chief. I'll be curious to see whether the new chief is issuing unrestricted licenses to all comers or just the ones who sued his predecessor.

 

[matt9112]

Will this effect all restriction across the Commonwealth with a win? I mean there's been a flurry of cases lately clearly saying CCW is a right. Yet the vast population of citizens live in towns that make CCW impossible...

 

[terraformer]

Will this effect all restriction across the Commonwealth with a win? I mean there's been a flurry of cases lately clearly saying CCW is a right. Yet the vast population of citizens live in towns that make CCW impossible...

Yes, this should make other towns do better. But the vast majority of MA gun owners have unrestricted licenses. over 90%. It's actually a minority who have restrictions.

 

[MaynardDad]

I just noticed that a Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed on August 14. It describes the Palmer v. DC ruling and mentions that Class B LTCs cannot be issued anymore.

 

[matt9112]

I am aware however I was referring to the populations. ..in metro boston specificly that push such a scheme gun ownership is often abandoned by many. Gun ownership needs to become more popular in the east...it's the voting base....

 

[terraformer]

Some updates. See Comm2A's site for this case.
http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/41-projects/current-projects/102-davis

 

[jar]

It's pretty rich for defendants to suggest that the court should avoid delay by forcing a whole new lawsuit to be filed instead of amending this one to add additional plaintiffs.

Defendants exhibit looks awfully familiar ;-)

 

[vickers]

Huh, so defendant council is using the NES thread where Comm2a was looking for plaintiffs against us in their Opposition to Motion for Leave. Interesting.

 

[terraformer]

Defendants exhibit looks awfully familiar ;-)

It does???

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, this should make other towns do better. But the vast majority of MA gun owners have unrestricted licenses. over 90%. It's actually a minority who have restrictions.

This came as a big surprise to many of us. The restricted percentage (counting both LTC-As with restrictions and all ltC-Bs as restricted) made up about 8% of all LTCs issued in the year immediately previous to Jan/Feb 2013.

So, those towns like Brookline, Springfield, Watertown are going to a lot of effort to make sure their residents are denied access to a flavor of license available to the vast majority of MA residents. Simply put, if you live in one of the "problem towns" you are treated as a second class subject.

 

[loki32687]

Can someone dumb it all down for me? Also, curious as to why I'm part of the evidence lol

 

[BigDaddyAl]

The Defendants would point out that effective February 1, 2015, under recently passed legislation, it appears that it will be incumbent upon the individual chiefs of police statewide to file an action in District Court in those instances in which an individual police chief seeks to add a restriction, i.e. Target & Hunting, to an LTC, where the applicant is not otherwise statutorily disqualified from possessing an LTC.

From their mouth to God's ears.

 

[browncoat]

It is very annoying to me that they argue that the type written application stating T&H signed by the applicants abrogated the applicants rights. If you refuse to not put a restriction, there is no choice on the part of the applicant. Such an infuriating argument. Gotta admit it's kind of creepy to see those screen grabs in evidence

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It is very annoying to me that they argue that the type written application stating T&H signed by the applicants abrogated the applicants rights. If you refuse to not put a restriction, there is no choice on the part of the applicant. Such an infuriating argument. Gotta admit it's kind of creepy to see those screen grabs in evidence

Note that Brookline requires applicants to sign a statement that they "willingly accept" the restriction placed on their license.

If any Brookline applicant is willing to litigate for the right to have their application processed without signing such a statement, please contact Comm2A. In fact, one could argue that for many NES/Brookline members, compelling them to sign such a statement is actually subornation of perjury.

 

[kingfisher]

The Defendants would point out that effective February 1, 2015, under recently passed legislation, it appears that it will be incumbent upon the individual chiefs of police statewide to file an action in District Court in those instances in which an individual police chief seeks to add a restriction, i.e. Target & Hunting, to an LTC, where the applicant is not otherwise statutorily disqualified from possessing an LTC.

Shouldn't this actually be effective January 1, 2015?

 

[terraformer]

Shouldn't this actually be effective January 1, 2015?

They should have quoted the new law correctly too...

 

[xero2099]

Note that Brookline requires applicants to sign a statement that they "willingly accept" the restriction placed on their license..

 

[matt9112]

If it matters I live in watertown and recently received my LTC in July with ofcourse hunting and target restrictions and I clearly asked for all lawful purposes and clearly mentioned it and the reasoning in my letter to the chief. ..entire process was also about 4 months long.

I was told that they just don't see the need...because I don't own a business or anything like that.

 

[Palladin]

If it matters I live in watertown and recently received my LTC in July with ofcourse hunting and target restrictions and I clearly asked for all lawful purposes and clearly mentioned it and the reasoning in my letter to the chief. ..entire process was also about 4 months long.

I was told that they just don't see the need...because I don't own a business or anything like that.

On Jan 2nd, take the chief to court

 

[matt9112]

On Jan 2nd, take the chief to court

Do we have any idea what this process is going to look like? In complexity and scope?