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

JZ1018 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right. The court also ignored the equal protection arguments. Basically: it's ok to discriminate because the policy itself does not violate the 2A. That's not what the plaintiffs were arguing. The argument is "even if the policy does not itself violate the 2A, the unequal application of the policy violates equal protection". The court failed to address how doctors and lawyers should be granted unrestricted licenses, but secretaries should be restricted. By further extension, people in the privileged occupations tend not to be underrepresented minorities. The policy disproportionately affects minorities, which is illegal regardless of the 2A implications. Unfortunately, the racial discrimination argument is difficult to prove.
 
If national reciprocity passes, would this case become moot? If the House version passes, then all Boston has to say is that the plaintiffs can get a license from another state and be able to carry concealed in this state?
 
JZ1018 said:
If national reciprocity passes, would this case become moot? If the House version passes, then all Boston has to say is that the plaintiffs can get a license from another state and be able to carry concealed in this state?
Click to expand...

IANAL You'd still need something so you can purchase in MA, but a restricted LTC would be able to do that. But having a work around (that will likely be challenged in court), doesn't make what Boston is doing right.
 
If the national reciprocity bill passes (which I doubt), CA, MA, NJ, NY, IL, MD, and maybe others will file law suits. The first will be to prevent recognition of non resident permits or licenses to residents of their states that have already been denied permission slips. They will argue that they have determined that those people are not suitable to carry firearms and that other states issuing non resident permits or licenses is a "dangerous loop hole that will cause the streets to run red with blood blah, blah, blah,"

Stupid argument, but as we have seen, in some federal courts, stupid arguments win.

JZ1018 said:
If national reciprocity passes, would this case become moot? If the House version passes, then all Boston has to say is that the plaintiffs can get a license from another state and be able to carry concealed in this state?
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
If the national reciprocity bill passes (which I doubt), CA, MA, NJ, NY, IL, MD, and maybe others will file law suits. The first will be to prevent recognition of non resident permits or licenses to residents of their states that have already been denied permission slips. They will argue that they have determined that those people are not suitable to carry firearms and that other states issuing non resident permits or licenses is a "dangerous loop hole that will cause the streets to run red with blood blah, blah, blah,"

Stupid argument, but as we have seen, in some federal courts, stupid arguments win.
Click to expand...

The state has no standing to challenge the law, they will just ignore it and force anyone who uses it to carry a gun in those states either as an out of stater or a resident who uses an out of state license to argue in court they are covered by the fed law. It will be the same as NY/NJ arresting someone who is in full compliance with FOPA and telling them "You can make that argument at your court date"
 
The state has no standing to challenge the law, they will just ignore it and force anyone who uses it to carry a gun in those states either as an out of stater or a resident who uses an out of state license to argue in court they are covered by the fed law. It will be the same as NY/NJ arresting someone who is in full compliance with FOPA and telling them "You can make that argument at your court date"
Click to expand...
Carry will be common enough that the expected federal suits will put an end to that.

But, there could be policies like the initial NYPC LEOSA one ... detail the subject until the issuing agency can be contacted and the LEOSA status of the individual verified.
 
JJ4 said:
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: 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.
Click to expand...

It's by design. Courts including SCOTUS routinely rely on this when substantive arguments don't exist supporting their conclusions.

I mean, they cannot support their claim so they argue that it doesn't even matter. It's a nice catch 22.

In one SCOTUS ruling it was proven that the governments actions were LESS effective than other clearly legal methods, and the court ruled that it didn't matter. The claim they needed to do that for was good enough and obviously the government had an interest in that claim.

That's how these courts work. The Constitution isn't relevant to them. Logic isn't important. The only thing that matters is defending government actions.
 
Standing is a matter for the court to decide. I doubt that any of the states that I expect to file suits (in different federal circuits) will be deterred in filing the suits if their AGs think that they might at least delay implementation.

firestorm said:
The state has no standing to challenge the law, they will just ignore it and force anyone who uses it to carry a gun in those states either as an out of stater or a resident who uses an out of state license to argue in court they are covered by the fed law. It will be the same as NY/NJ arresting someone who is in full compliance with FOPA and telling them "You can make that argument at your court date"
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
Standing is a matter for the court to decide. I doubt that any of the states that I expect to file suits (in different federal circuits) will be deterred in filing the suits if their AGs think that they might at least delay implementation.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the 9th Circus has a form letter all drafted up and ready to go for halting it as soon as the case gets to them.
 
Garys said:
My recollection, which might be wrong, is the Kozinski was one of the votes to overturn the CA "may issue" statute in Peruta.
Click to expand...

"Kozinski, appointed by President Reagan, is considered a Libertarian and an iconoclast who has used the bench to float quirky ideas.
In one case, he wrote that lethal injection should be scrapped for the firing squad, though he thought the guillotine the best method."

and

“Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

So, bummer.
 
CAR said:
"Kozinski, appointed by President Reagan, is considered a Libertarian and an iconoclast who has used the bench to float quirky ideas.
In one case, he wrote that lethal injection should be scrapped for the firing squad, though he thought the guillotine the best method."

and

“Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

So, bummer.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I kind of like the idea of bringing back firing squads and the guillotine.
 
Wow. Had no idea about the Boston physician being denied upon renewal. Messed up. Glad you guys are providing specific examples for your case. Thanks for all your work.
 
I like the NRA's brief shredding Bloomietown's faux 'history' and making the 14th amendment argument.

The States' brief is also nice in pointing out the issues of applying strict scrutiny and statistics.
 
Last edited:
JZ1018 said:
If national reciprocity passes, would this case become moot? If the House version passes, then all Boston has to say is that the plaintiffs can get a license from another state and be able to carry concealed in this state?
Click to expand...

I doubt national reciprocity will ever pass. If it does, it would immediately be challenged by the AGs in many states, in a fight that would go all the way to SCOTUS. I would be surprised if such a law would survive SCOTUS review.
 
"Its decision does not "offend" the Second Amendment." [puke]
Not sure why RI is in there, the towns are shall issue and the AG is may issue, this was affirmed in Mosby v. Devine.
 
Whutmeworry said:
Any pattern of recent rulings out of the First Circuit that might foreshadow which side of the issue the court will come down on??
Click to expand...
Nothing good. It's almost a foregone conclusion that the First Circuit will rule against us. The only questions is how hard are they willing to work in order to pollute the case enough so that we won't want to petition the Supreme Court. They're pretty crafty and I don't think there's a single judge in this circuit that is even remotely open to the idea the Supreme Court might have gotten Heller correct.

The good news is that the district court treated us reasonable fairly. We didn't get the decision we wanted, but the record is solid. The court followed the pack take any shortcuts. There's a circuit split on right-to-carry. The First Circuit is the only one that hasn't reached an opinion yet and the district court judge basically followed the majority.

Except for the First Circuit, the other circuits have either ruled on this issue or won't have the opportunity because the lack restrictive carry laws. The circuits that have ruled against us have either held that the Second Amendment is a homebound right or that the challenged regulations are 'reasonable' and do not constitute an infringement.

The current circuit scoreboard is:
  • Against us - 4: (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th)
  • For us - 2: (7th, DC)
  • Undecided - 1: (1st)
  • Not voting - 5: (5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th)
One would think that once the First Circuit weighs in the voting would be complete and the Supreme Court might finally take this issue on. Maybe. But given the court's recent reluctance to do anything controversial, they may just be content to let different standards apply for a few decades.

ETA: It's also interesting to note that the defendants have hired on a big DC law firm with a significant Supreme Court practice.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Nothing good. It's almost a foregone conclusion that the First Circuit will rule against us. The only questions is how hard are they willing to work in order to pollute the case enough so that we won't want to petition the Supreme Court. They're pretty crafty and I don't think there's a single judge in this circuit that is even remotely open to the idea the Supreme Court might have gotten Heller correct.

The good news is that the district court treated us reasonable fairly. We didn't get the decision we wanted, but the record is solid. The court followed the pack take any shortcuts. There's a circuit split on right-to-carry. The First Circuit is the only one that hasn't reached an opinion yet and the district court judge basically followed the majority.

Except for the First Circuit, the other circuits have either ruled on this issue or won't have the opportunity because the lack restrictive carry laws. The circuits that have ruled against us have either held that the Second Amendment is a homebound right or that the challenged regulations are 'reasonable' and do not constitute an infringement.

The current circuit scoreboard is:
  • Against us - 4: (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th)
  • For us - 2: (7th, DC)
  • Undecided - 1: (1st)
  • Not voting - 5: (5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th)
One would think that once the First Circuit weighs in the voting would be complete and the Supreme Court might finally take this issue on. Maybe. But given the court's recent reluctance to do anything controversial, they may just be content to let different standards apply for a few decades.

ETA: It's also interesting to note that the defendants have hired on a big DC law firm with a significant Supreme Court practice.
Click to expand...


Not one single justice in 1st CCA that understands 2A says what it says??? I sure hope a whole bunch of them are getting ready to retire - time now.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Nothing good. It's almost a foregone conclusion that the First Circuit will rule against us. The only questions is how hard are they willing to work in order to pollute the case enough so that we won't want to petition the Supreme Court. They're pretty crafty and I don't think there's a single judge in this circuit that is even remotely open to the idea the Supreme Court might have gotten Heller correct.

The good news is that the district court treated us reasonable fairly. We didn't get the decision we wanted, but the record is solid. The court followed the pack take any shortcuts. There's a circuit split on right-to-carry. The First Circuit is the only one that hasn't reached an opinion yet and the district court judge basically followed the majority.

Except for the First Circuit, the other circuits have either ruled on this issue or won't have the opportunity because the lack restrictive carry laws. The circuits that have ruled against us have either held that the Second Amendment is a homebound right or that the challenged regulations are 'reasonable' and do not constitute an infringement.

The current circuit scoreboard is:
  • Against us - 4: (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th)
  • For us - 2: (7th, DC)
  • Undecided - 1: (1st)
  • Not voting - 5: (5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 11th)
One would think that once the First Circuit weighs in the voting would be complete and the Supreme Court might finally take this issue on. Maybe. But given the court's recent reluctance to do anything controversial, they may just be content to let different standards apply for a few decades.

ETA: It's also interesting to note that the defendants have hired on a big DC law firm with a significant Supreme Court practice.
Click to expand...

There's also the FL Supreme Court's Norman case. Although not 100% on point, it very much implied shall-issue was constitutional over may-issue.
 

Similar threads

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturns dismissal of CT's Nastri v. Dykes (CT park carry ban)
Replies
0
Views
149
sbhaven
S
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
315
M1911
M1911
Pdp v canik
Replies
7
Views
364
wcorey
W
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
757
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom