Gould v O'Leary - Comm2A Carry Case v. Boston / Brookline

[milktree]

Yes to all.

Huh... I didn't expect that answer. Now I'm curious. Can you expand on that?

Is this an "all taxes are bad" thing, or "taxes that interfere in any way with any enumerated rights are bad" thing?

If the latter, how do you make a distinction between 1x3s used for protest signs and 1x3s used as strapping to hold up a ceiling?

Clearly the former is used as part of public protest (constitutionally protected) while the latter is not.

You can't believe the .gov is responsible to supply the tools to exercise enumerated rights, right?

I don't think taxes on ammo or guns are unconstitutional, *SO LONG AS* it's not a special tax aimed specifically on those things. e.g.: sales tax that applies to nearly everything is constitutionally legitimate, but a special tax on guns or ammo is not.

A tax or fee on public speech (like a fee for standing on a soap box in The Boston Common) violates The Constitution, but a tax on soap boxes does not.

 

[Jason Flare]

Is healthcare a right?

Now.

 

[milktree]

Is healthcare a right?

Now.

Which kind of right?

I'd argue that health care is a right in the sense that you shouldn't be denied access to it, just like free speech. i.e. you have a right to free speech, but nobody is required to buy you a soap box or a computer and Internet connection.

 

[Jason Flare]

Which kind of right?

I'd argue that health care is a right in the sense that you shouldn't be denied access to it, just like free speech. i.e. you have a right to free speech, but nobody is required to buy you a soap box or a computer and Internet connection.

The same kind of right that’s in the Bill of Rights?

 

[milktree]

The same kind of right that’s in the Bill of Rights?

So, (please correct me if I'm misreading you) you believe that health care is a right in the same way that free speech is a right: Nobody can prevent you from getting it, but also nobody is required to provide it for free. Do I understand you correctly?

 

[milktree]

The same kind of right that’s in the Bill of Rights?

Actually, let me rephrase:

Here's two kinds of rights:

1) You have the right to a speedy trial.

2) you have the right to keep and bear arms.

The first one requires the state to provide a trial in a timely manner. You have a right to something THAT SOMEONE ELSE MUST PROVIDE.

The second one requires that the state do nothing to prevent you from having or carrying guns, but there is no obligation on the part of anyone to provide you with a gun.

So, *both* kinds of rights are in the bill of rights.

I think they're called "positive" and "negative" rights, but I can't find a good reference right now.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Did anyone actually listen to the podcast or is this thread drift permanent?

 

[M1911]

Yeah, let's get this thread back on topic. If you want to continue to discuss this thread drift, please make a new thread.

 

[JohnZ]

Interesting take. Basically saying that Scalia screwed us by saying that rights are not unlimited.

 

[W.E.C]

Interesting take. Basically saying that Scalia screwed us by saying that rights are not unlimited.

Funny how they always seem to omit the “shall” (an important and specific legal term) not be infringed “
Clause.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The current deadline for seeking a writ of certiorari is April 1st, 2019.

 

[swatgig]

The current deadline for seeking a writ of certiorari is April 1st, 2019.

How did you come up with that date? I calculate 90 days from 11/2 to be 1/31

Rule 13. Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning
1. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Ap peals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment. A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying discretionary review.

 

[terraformer]

How did you come up with that date? I calculate 90 days from 11/2 to be 1/31

Assented to motion for 60 days.

 

[Coyote33]

And in a decision that surprises no one, the First Circuit says the right to bear arms (carry) is not protected by the second amendment.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2202P-01A.pdf
This line says it all:
"We make explicit today what was implicit in Hightower: that the core Second Amendment right is limited to self-defense in the home."

Just wanted this repeated for the record.

Well at least this tees up a SCotUS appeal.
Does any other Amendment (besides the 3rd) only apply in the home?

Anyone?

Imagine if Clinton just appointed two SCOTUS justices.

No, but Trump did.

File a Writ of Certiorari (on or before 1/31/19) asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.

The current deadline for seeking a writ of certiorari is April 1st, 2019.

How did you come up with that date? I calculate 90 days from 11/2 to be 1/31

So, where is this at now?

 

[swatgig]

Just wanted this repeated for the record.


Anyone?


No, but Trump did.









So, where is this at now?

Deadline is 4/1.

 

[PeterC]

Comm2A Brings Gould v. Morgan to SCOTUS
Yesterday Comm2A filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in Gould v. Morgan. Originally filed in February of 2014, Gould is a Second Amendment challenge to licensing policies in Brookline and Boston which require applicants to demonstrate a 'proper purpose' for carrying a firearm. If the court grants certiorari review the case will likely be heard during the October Term 2019. Gould v. Morgan represents the first time that Comm2A has brought a case all the way to the nation's highest court.

The Questions Present Are:

1. Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
2. Whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.

Gould is the third carry petition filed with the court during the current term. The high court granted cert in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York a limited scope case that challenges a New York City regulation that prohibits holders of a premise license from transporting their firearms outside of the city. Oral argument in this case will take place during the October Term 2019. An amicus curiae brief from Comm2A is forthcoming.

In December a cert petition was filed in Rogers v. Grewal, a challenge to the New Jersey law requiring applicants for a Handgun Carry Permit to demonstrate a "justifiable need to carry a handgun". Respondent New Jersey has until April 19th to file a response. The questions presented in Rogers are identical to those presented in Gould.
We Work Because of You
Comm2A works for you because you work for us. Our ability to develop cases like Gould v. Morgan are only possible due to your generous support.

Please help us support projects like Gould by becoming a sustaining member or by making a one-time donation.

Comm2A is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Donations made to Comm2A are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. Additionally, many employers offer matching grants for employees who give to qualified non-profits such as Comm2A.

 

[hv55maxx]

second the motion above^^^^ the email i got reminded me that i never set up the recurring donation after paypal stopped. Just re-upped it monthly.

I would encourage others who have not yet done so to re-up also.

 

[MachineHead]

second the motion above^^^^ the email i got reminded me that i never set up the recurring donation after paypal stopped. Just re-upped it monthly.

I would encourage others who have not yet done so to re-up also.

Totally forgot to get back on this. My gf and I will be doing this tonight.

Great work, Comm2A! I feel like I’ve been hearing about the Gould case since forevero.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Stay tuned. We have a totally unrelated but huge project ready to break in the coming weeks. It'll be the culmination of a multi-year effort and I think it will make people really happy. We just need to dot some I's and cross some T's.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Stay tuned. We have a totally unrelated but huge project ready to break in the coming weeks. It'll be the culmination of a multi-year effort and I think it will make people really happy. We just need to dot some I's and cross some T's.

Thank You for all the hard work !!!

 

[JJ4]

Stay tuned. We have a totally unrelated but huge project ready to break in the coming weeks. It'll be the culmination of a multi-year effort and I think it will make people really happy. We just need to dot some I's and cross some T's.

I don't usually share memes, but...

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Interesting take. Basically saying that Scalia screwed us by saying that rights are not unlimited.

They can take that and shove it. It's an opinion by one judge who doesn't know how to read.

How about this.

"The Second Amendment is neither second class, nor second rate, nor second tier. The “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has no need of penumbras or emanations. It’s right there, 27 words enshrined for 227 years"

Judge Don Willett

 

[JZ1018]

Even though she hasn't done any of the hard work, I am so proud of my daughter who stepped up to be a plaintiff in this case.

 

[crispnipz]

Even though she hasn't done any of the hard work, I am so proud of my daughter who stepped up to be a plaintiff in this case.

Thank you to her and all involved. I am from Ohio and enforcement when visiting states that otherwise honor the MA license is quite a gray area and burden on us who are restricted.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Thank you to her and all involved. I am from Ohio and enforcement when visiting states that otherwise honor the MA license is quite a gray area and burden on us who are restricted.

Said enforcement could make an interesting case. If the law in the reciprocity state is "subject to the same condition", one condition of carrying outside the restriction on a MA LTC is that it is punishable only by a civil fine and not as unlicensed carry.

 

[crispnipz]

Said enforcement could make an interesting case. If the law in the reciprocity state is "subject to the same condition", one condition of carrying outside the restriction on a MA LTC is that it is punishable only by a civil fine and not as unlicensed carry.

My understanding is that if that happened in MA, they would revoke the LTC. Would they revoke an LTC if it happened in another state? Has that ever happened?

 

[SKumar]

Thank you Comm2A for all that you guys do

 

[amm5061]

My understanding is that if that happened in MA, they would revoke the LTC. Would they revoke an LTC if it happened in another state? Has that ever happened?

In any other state you don't need an LTC to own firearms....

 

[AHM]

My understanding is that if that happened in MA, they would revoke the LTC. Would they a Massachusetts police chief revoke an LTC if it happened in another state?

In any other state you don't need an LTC to own firearms....

FTFH.

 

[amm5061]

FTFH.

This is why grammar is important.

Well, depends on the state. There are a lot of states where constitutional carry is the law of the land, and quite a few more where open carry is legal and all you gotta do is tuck your shirt out of the way, so....

But yes, if you get hauled up on charges and not just a "Hey, put that away and don't let me catch you carrying it again," yeah, you're probably gonna get f***ed when you try to renew.