- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Seeing an appeal is likely, any idea on how long the process will take before a final decision is rendered?
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Seeing an appeal is likely, any idea on how long the process will take before a final decision is rendered?
By DC, are you referring to the Federal District Court, plus 6 months, or to DC as in SCOTUS, plus 6 months? I'm obviously hoping for a win, just wondering on a timetable.
Maybe within 6 months. But it's a very open question how long this takes.
A ruling on the motions came down earlier today - next round due April 26th:
Davis v. Grimes
Order denying cross motions.
my little brain is confused.
Why doesnt case go to trial? I am not advocating just asking since IANAL.
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.After a quick skim, it appears that the judge is trying to wiggle out of having to decide the case on 2nd Amendment issues. But IANAL...
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.my little brain is confused.
Why doesnt case go to trial? I am not advocating just asking since IANAL.
Certainly there is "substantial uncertainty" as to whether the Massachusetts firearm-licensing statute allows a local licensing authority to deny categorically any application by a first-time applicant who seeks a firearm for personal protection, even when the applicant has shown a "good reason to fear injury." A state-court decision on that issue would obviate the need for a federal constitutional decision on the extent of the Second Amendment in this case.
The statute is not a model of clarity.
My favorite quote from this ruling:
We do get good prose out of these cases. I'm still itching for a chance to use "requires considerable analytic strain" somewhere.
We do get good prose out of these cases. I'm still itching for a chance to use "requires considerable analytic strain" somewhere.
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.
Right up there with "Requires considerable analytical strain" from Fletcher v. HaasMy favorite quote from this ruling: