Have no fear, the 1st Circus has the same agenda as our AG. Then it goes to a request for en banc and after that we pray USSC takes it.
-
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***
Gould v O'Leary - Comm2A Carry Case v. Boston / Brookline
- Thread starter Knuckle Dragger
- Start date
Have no fear, the 1st Circus has the same agenda as our AG. Then it goes to a request for en banc and after that we pray USSC takes it.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,538
- Likes
- 33,585
This makes the DC case very important.
Although not precedent setting, Federal Circuits do take note of decisions in other jurisdictions. If the existing cases in other jurisdictions are unanimous, another court is going to think long an hard before it goes out on a limb and arrives at a different decision.
Many consider the DC Circuit to be the most important court beneath SCOTUS. Their influence exceeds that any other circuit.
The MASJC also ruled once that the 2A only protects technology that existed in 1789. SCOTUS unanimously smacked them down on that one. But that will not stop MASJC from doing it again.
amm5061
NES Member
And didn't they respond by dropping the case so that they didn't set a legal precedent and the state could continue oppressing vulnerable women who just wanted to protect themselves via less-lethal means from abusive, raping ex-boyfriends?
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
The MA motto is the similar CA. "WORK PLACE SAFETY IS JOB 1, EVEN FOR CRIMINALS."And didn't they respond by dropping the case so that they didn't set a legal precedent and the state could continue oppressing vulnerable women who just wanted to protect themselves via less-lethal means from abusive, raping ex-boyfriends?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
THE USSC needs to grow a set and take on this ****ing infringement of 2A rights.
- - - Updated - - -
print this out on paper and leave it on the judges desk.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- - - Updated - - -
print this out on paper and leave it on the judges desk.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Holy crap, the Everytown brief can be summed up with, "We've always done it this way, so it's a good idea". But they used 30 pages to say it.
That's the worst argument ever for anything, and demonstrably not true. (anyone remember the 13th Amendment?)
edit:
I love the response, "that's not what it says, it actually proves our point". (you dumbasses)
That's the worst argument ever for anything, and demonstrably not true. (anyone remember the 13th Amendment?)
edit:
I love the response, "that's not what it says, it actually proves our point". (you dumbasses)
Last edited:
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Wow those every town people are digging deep and finding laws written before the constitution went into effect. I guess there were gun grabbers even back then.
MachineHead
NES Member
Helpful when the sword in question is the demonstrable truth... As I've told my black friends when inviting them to the range, Licensing is a Jim Crow law (ALL have been shocked to learn that licensing has existed in Massachusetts since 1906.)
If I believe the friend in question can handle the turn of phrase, I usually say "Firearms licensing in Massachusetts, and in America in general, isn't to keep fat white lower middle class guys like ME from having guns."
The truth is the truth no matter how much the libs try to erase it.
Gun control wasn't even a thought in this country till the freed slaves started to have them.
Didn't sit well with DEMOCRATS.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,256
Well, this went pretty much as expected. The only surprise is how fast the court turned around a decision. At least we can get on with the appeal that much sooner!
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.177626/gov.uscourts.mad.177626.92.0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.177626/gov.uscourts.mad.177626.92.0.pdf
I can't stand how the state can claim, "in the interest of public safety!111" but not be required to present any evidence restricted licensing reduces crime compared to the 90%+ of cities and towns in the commonwealth without restricted licensing. The court's unwillingness to apply strict scrutiny is also maddening when the SCotUS has indicated that immediate scrutiny doesn't cut it anymore.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,370
- Likes
- 109,162
fricken 'public safety' bullshit. I'm going to go pour a stiff drink, after I get my hip boots off from the pile of shit I just waded (read) through
Seems a good time to remind everyone that donations to Comm2A are tax-deductible. If you're looking to wrap up your 2017 charitable giving, throw a little their way. If your 2017 charitable giving is squared away, send them something anyway - one time or monthly, they'll hook you up with a membership, and they have an awful lot going on protecting the 2A rights of all of us. It's quick, easy and not expensive, so easy my wife hasn't even realized I upgraded our membership this year.
And if you shop Amazon this holiday season, use this link: shop.comm2a.org.Seems a good time to remind everyone that donations to Comm2A are tax-deductible. If you're looking to wrap up your 2017 charitable giving, throw a little their way. If your 2017 charitable giving is squared away, send them something anyway - one time or monthly, they'll hook you up with a membership, and they have an awful lot going on protecting the 2A rights of all of us. It's quick, easy and not expensive, so easy my wife hasn't even realized I upgraded our membership this year.
Seems a good time to remind everyone that donations to Comm2A are tax-deductible. If you're looking to wrap up your 2017 charitable giving, throw a little their way. If your 2017 charitable giving is squared away, send them something anyway - one time or monthly, they'll hook you up with a membership, and they have an awful lot going on protecting the 2A rights of all of us. It's quick, easy and not expensive, so easy my wife hasn't even realized I upgraded our membership this year.
I just sent a "Christmas Bonus" donation to Comm2A and increased my automatic monthly contribution to them for the next year as well. Some time ago my Wife made a comment about it to which I responded that my annual donation to Comm2A is a lot less then what she pays a hairdresser. That ended any discussion.
I've been doing this as well.
E.Stoner
NES Member
I had to stop reading this because it was making my blood boil. This needs to get run all the way up the flagpole, sooner the better.
Interesting analysis section in particular. Here are my cliffs notes:
- Summary of the Peruta original finding and en blank overturn (pg 19)
- Summary of Wren v. DC (pg 19-20), Hightower (pg. 21 and continues after)
Then on pg 21:
"In short, precedent does not clearly dictate whether the Second Amendment extends to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. In the face of this conflicting authority, the Court will heed the caution urged by the First Circuit that the Second Amendment is an area that “courts should enter only upon necessity and only then by small degree.” Id. at 74 (quoting Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 475). Accordingly, the Court will follow the approach taken by the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits, and assume for analytical purposes that the Second Amendment extends to protect the right of armed self-defense outside the home. The remaining question is whether the restrictions here survive the applicable level of constitutional scrutiny."
Bolding and underlining are mine. This is something, I think: An acknowledgement that 2A protects rights to carry guns outside the home.
Pg. 24: "The challenged restrictions allow for use of a firearm in defense of the home, and therefore only implicate an individual’s ability to carry a firearm in public. Because that interest is not at the “core” of the Second Amendment right recognized by Heller, analysis at a level of scrutiny lower than the strict scrutiny standard appears to be appropriate."
The crux, also pg. 24: "the First Circuit has not yet adopted the intermediate scrutiny standard for Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations, the Court will avoid using that specific label. Instead, the Court’s analysis will focus on whether defendant has shown a “substantial relationship between the restriction and an important governmental objective."
My note: here is where I believe the court erred.
Pg. 28: "To the extent that imposing “sporting,” “target,” “hunting,” and “employment” restrictions on applicants who fail to show “good reason to fear injury” burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, that requirement is substantially related to the state’s important objective in protecting public safety and preventing crime."
Also pg 28: "Although the empirical data may be less than conclusive, the government’s regulation need only be “substantially related” to its important objective of promoting public safety and preventing crime in order to pass constitutional muster."
My note: Note that the burden is related to a "belief" (stated previously) or "objective" (above) that the restrictions protect public safety and prevent crime. It doesn't matter to this court if the restrictions actually achieve those goals, only if the government has a "belief" or "objective". Another error.
Pg 28-29: "Instead of banning the carrying of firearms in public outright, the Massachusetts legislature has balanced the need to reduce the number of firearms in public with the needs of individuals who have a heightened need to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In short, the policy that requires applicants to show a specific reason to fear in order to be issued unrestricted firearm licenses, and its authorizing statute, are constitutional."
My note: Collective whims trumping individual rights.
Pg. 30. "Accordingly, the placing of restrictions such as “sporting,” “target,” “hunting,” and “employment” on the licenses of applicants who do not show good reason to fear injury is substantially related to the important governmental objective of public safety, and therefore does not violate the Second Amendment"
Pg. 30: The court ignores the equal protection clause argument since the 2A claim has failed.
If any of my comments above should be removed for any reason I'd be happy to edit them out.
Last edited:
The arguments above seem plausible if this were the practice across the whole state, but I would like the court to justify their reasoning for these specific towns to restrict licenses when so many others do not issue restrictions. Residents from any number of cities and towns adjacent to Boston can carry a firearm in Boston, but Boston residents cannot.
