GOAL files Amicus Brief in Defense of McDonald

[GOAL C.M.]

GOAL Files Court Brief in Defense of McDonald Decision

In early October Gun Owners’ Action League filed a friend of the court brief (Amicus Curiae) at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Mass SJC). The brief was filed in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Aaron Powell (SJC-10783). The case involved the arrest and conviction of an 18 year old Massachusetts resident in possession of a handgun without a license. The person in question had no known previous criminal record.

GOAL’s interest in the case came when the Mass SJC specifically called for the case without it going through the normal appeals process first. This fact alone sent up red flags that the court might be taking an activist role in any gun case post Heller and McDonald. Knowing this, the GOAL Board felt it necessary to file an Amicus Brief to make sure that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the protections of the Second Amendment were not undone by the Mass SJC. GOAL hired Attorney Ed George to file the brief on our behalf citing two very specific concerns with the case.

Read the rest on GOAL.org

 

[snwbrdr435]

Tagged

 

[TheRoland]

Any chance you could post the brief, here or on the GOAL page?

 

[gjones77]

Geeze, what late night infomercial did Powell find his attorney on?

She looks fresh out of law school and seems to lack a spine.

If you're going to go into the SJC in mass then be ready to defend your point of view, they're not your friends.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

It wasn't their choice to go to SJC, they were called.

That's what bothers us about the case and why we got involved, we wanted to ensure they had help and that the SJC does not try any shenanigans.

We'll post our brief soon.

 

[Engineer]

Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-

All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.

IANAL and I am probably over interpreting Article I (amended) of Commonwealth's Constitution but it seems we have a RIGHT to defend our lives and our property - How then can the state deny us the ability to do so against armed thugs as they surely have guns and other weapons ?

 

[RKG]

GOAL Files Court Brief in Defense of McDonald Decision

In early October Gun Owners’ Action League filed a friend of the court brief (Amicus Curiae) at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Mass SJC). The brief was filed in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Aaron Powell (SJC-10783). The case involved the arrest and conviction of an 18 year old Massachusetts resident in possession of a handgun without a license. The person in question had no known previous criminal record.

GOAL’s interest in the case came when the Mass SJC specifically called for the case without it going through the normal appeals process first. This fact alone sent up red flags that the court might be taking an activist role in any gun case post Heller and McDonald. Knowing this, the GOAL Board felt it necessary to file an Amicus Brief to make sure that the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the protections of the Second Amendment were not undone by the Mass SJC. GOAL hired Attorney Ed George to file the brief on our behalf citing two very specific concerns with the case.

Read the rest on GOAL.org

I respectfully suggest you read too much into the SJC's employment of "direct appellate review."

In Massachusetts, the Appeals Court has obligatory jurisdiction over most civil and criminal appeals. The SJC has a very narrow obligatory jurisdiction, and otherwise fills its docket with (a) review of decisions of the Appeals Court, known as "further appellate review" and otherwise taking cases that might be interesting, or at least not boringly routine, known as "direct appellate review." Parties to an appeal before the Appeals Court may move for direct appellate review, and the SJC can take any case it choses by direct appellate review sua sponte. See Mass. R. App. P. 11. In any session, some number of cases will be taken on "direct appellate review" simply to fill out the Court's docket.

I gather the appellate claim in this case is that the Massachusetts statutory minimum age limit for possession of a handgun is trumped by the federal Second Amendment; this certainly qualifies for direct appellate review under Rule 11, based simply on the nature of the question presented. That direct appellate review has been taken signifies, ex proprio vigore, nothing about the predilection of the two justices who endorsed it.

 

[cekim]

IANAL and I am probably over interpreting Article I (amended) of Commonwealth's Constitution but it seems we have a RIGHT to defend our lives and our property - How then can the state deny us the ability to do so against armed thugs as they surely have guns and other weapons ?

In 1975, the SJC ruled that this was a "militia right" to be "under the supervision of the legislature", not an individual right...

That ridiculous ruling will have to be explicitly over turned using MacDonald/Heller...