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

[Rob Boudrie]

My personal opinion only, and not that of Comm2a, but I think these cases should concentrate on the issue of equal protection under the law rather than 2A. It's easy to formulate a conclusion that Heller is an inside the home only decision, but harder to intellectually rationalize that allowing connected people to have access to a permit unavailable to ordinary, unconnected and unimportant people is "equal protection under the law".

 

[Bonesinium]

My personal opinion only, and not that of Comm2a, but I think these cases should concentrate on the issue of equal protection under the law rather than 2A. It's easy to formulate a conclusion that Heller is an inside the home only decision, but harder to intellectually rationalize that allowing connected people to have access to a permit unavailable to ordinary, unconnected and unimportant people is "equal protection under the law".

Except you are wrong.

I mean you are wrong about courts finding that harder. Courts can and do find all sorts of obvious things to mean something entirely different, routinely. In fact, in regards to "equal protection" specifically, you'll find that courts almost always can find that certain groups are afforded different powers and privileges...what one might just call, 'protections'...regularly. That argument is as likely if not more likely to fail than arguments on the 2A alone.

Here's an example.


"Police are allowed to possess certain firearms, and carry firearms in a manner, and in places, that we would routinely not allow others, and we find it no different in this case."

That was easy. And that sort of logic is exactly what courts use all the time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Except you are wrong.

"Police are allowed to possess certain firearms, and carry firearms in a manner, and in places, that we would routinely not allow others, and we find it no different in this case."

I am referring to the govt giving special privs to individuals with no responsibility for public service. Especially when it can be shown that white upper class people have a much greater chance of being granted something akin to a letter of marque and reprisal than a lower middle income brown person.

But, while I hope I am right, I fear that you may indeed be correct.

 

[Bonesinium]

I am referring to the govt giving special privs to individuals with no responsibility for public service. Especially when it can be shown that white upper class people have a much greater chance of being granted something akin to a letter of marque and reprisal than a lower middle income brown person.

But, while I hope I am right, I fear that you may indeed be correct.

Your logic isn't wrong. At least I don't think it is. It is reasonable and logical and based on the plain and obvious meaning of words and the Constitution. I just don't think judges tend to be interested in any of those things. They instead will use anything that supports the position of the government and power. Which obviously contrast with all restrictions that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution impose.

 

[Roy Rogers]

My personal opinion only, and not that of Comm2a, but I think these cases should concentrate on the issue of equal protection under the law rather than 2A. It's easy to formulate a conclusion that Heller is an inside the home only decision, but harder to intellectually rationalize that allowing connected people to have access to a permit unavailable to ordinary, unconnected and unimportant people is "equal protection under the law".

And of course, what about the right of self defense for people who don't have homes, including those who are literally homeless?

 

[Waher]

And of course, what about the right of self defense for people who don't have homes, including those who are literally homeless?

Unfortunate Caetano V. Massachusetts put that question back on the SJC which ignored it.

 

[Boston4567]

My personal opinion only, and not that of Comm2a, but I think these cases should concentrate on the issue of equal protection under the law rather than 2A. It's easy to formulate a conclusion that Heller is an inside the home only decision, but harder to intellectually rationalize that allowing connected people to have access to a permit unavailable to ordinary, unconnected and unimportant people is "equal protection under the law".

It is generally constitutional for the government to discriminate on the basis of whether someone is ordinary or not, unconnected or not, or unimportant or not. Meaningful equal protection is only triggered when the government impedes upon a "fundamental right" under the Constitution, or when it can be proven a law was put in place with the explicit intent to discriminate against a "suspect classification" of people. So the equal protection argument is mostly superfluous because it rises or falls with the 2A argument. If carry outside the home isn't a "fundamental right" under the Constitution, it can't be subjected to meaningful equal protection scrutiny.

 

[JohnZ]

I believe that they ruled that forcing someone to shovel a sidewalk in front of their house is equal to someone who doesn't have a sidewalk because that person could someday have a sidewalk and be forced to shovel it. If they can argue that, they can certainly argue you could kiss someone's ass so you are equal to someone who already has.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I believe that they ruled that forcing someone to shovel a sidewalk in front of their house is equal to someone who doesn't have a sidewalk because that person could someday have a sidewalk and be forced to shovel it. If they can argue that, they can certainly argue you could kiss someone's ass so you are equal to someone who already has.

There was a movement in my town to force people to shovel the sidewalks in front of their house while continuing the program of town plowing of sidewalks in neighborhoods near the high school. That would make for an interesting case if it was ever passed (it did not, just one busybody squawking about it)

 

[maltc]

It's likely to be 3-4 months before we get a decision. CA1 usually moves pretty fast. Could be longer, could be sooner.

Would the "decision" we're seeking here essentially eradicate ltc restrictions in Boston ? Assuming this goes in our favor how long would it take for a new applicant to reap these benefits? Thanks for the hard work- I have held off on applying in Boston until something like this moves forward, or I move.

 

[firestorm]

Would the "decision" we're seeking here essentially eradicate ltc restrictions in Boston ? Assuming this goes in our favor how long would it take for a new applicant to reap these benefits? Thanks for the hard work- I have held off on applying in Boston until something like this moves forward, or I move.

Crappy as it is to not be able to carry, why not get the license so you can possess and get the restriction on carry dealt with when you leave rather than waiting for a court decision that whichever side loses is likely to appeal? Unless a move is imminent, you are not getting even some of your rights by waiting, and it could be years before we get any help on this nonsense from the courts, if ever.

 

[Boston4567]

Would the "decision" we're seeking here essentially eradicate ltc restrictions in Boston ? Assuming this goes in our favor how long would it take for a new applicant to reap these benefits? Thanks for the hard work- I have held off on applying in Boston until something like this moves forward, or I move.

If a court were to strike down restrictions, it's very unlikely they would be allowed to force you to wait until your renewal to lift them. If they tried that, it would be shot down in court quickly.

 

[maltc]

Crappy as it is to not be able to carry, why not get the license so you can possess and get the restriction on carry dealt with when you leave rather than waiting for a court decision that whichever side loses is likely to appeal? Unless a move is imminent, you are not getting even some of your rights by waiting, and it could be years before we get any help on this nonsense from the courts, if ever.

You have a good point, but a move is imminent within the next year or 2, and potentially Maine or NH, so for now I really don't want to deal with BOSTON especially if it means I am locked into a 6 year license limited to target only. If I move to a green town in MA, and have that restriction, I don't want to risk being locked in to target hunting only. It happens.

 

[firestorm]

You have a good point, but a move is imminent within the next year or 2, and potentially Maine or NH, so for now I really don't want to deal with BOSTON especially if it means I am locked into a 6 year license limited to target only. If I move to a green town in MA, and have that restriction, I don't want to risk being locked in to target hunting only. It happens.

Oh I know, I was locked in due to the old town LO being a douche for a while. That makes sense, just figured I would point it out if you hadn't thought of it assuming the move might have been a long time off.

 

[swatgig]

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."

 

[Waher]

Well at least this tees up a SCotUS appeal.

Does any other Amendment (besides the 3rd) only apply in the home?

 

[TLB]

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."

Gross.

Imagine if Clinton just appointed two SCOTUS justices.

 

[terraformer]

Gross.

Imagine if Clinton just appointed two SCOTUS justices.

We would be done...

 

[Aaron[MA]]

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 caught the end of something about this on the radio and came here to see what the deal was.

Healy quote at the end of what I heard was something like 'this ruling will allow us to reduce violence...'. Lol. Has there been a single case of someone with a restricted ltc carrying and unlawfully using a gun?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

JHas there been a single case of someone with a restricted ltc carrying and unlawfully using a gun?

That would be an argument showing that restrictions work.

Better to get status on unrestricted LTC holders.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

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."

They are truly not smart at all.

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.

Is enough for me to understand

 

[JZ1018]

Next step?

 

[swatgig]

Next step?

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

 

[Jason Flare]

File a Writ of Certiorari (on or before 1/31/18) asking the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.

I have a time machine.

 

[swatgig]

I have a time machine.

Fixed

 

[Al458]

"we identified the core of the Second Amendment right as "the possession of operative firearms for use in defense of the home""

Somewhat off topic but saw that statement in the decision when they were discussing appropriate scrutiny, but if the state views that as the core of an individuals second amendment right, then isnt any license (restricted ltc..) or fee charged for said license to PURCHASE a firearm for the home basically a poll tax and unconstitutional and any challenge would have to be reviewed under strict scrutiny by the courts own admission because any restricted ltc is a tax and adds an unjust burden by the state for a law abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional right to keep a firearm in the home??

 

[W.E.C]

They are truly not smart at all.

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.

Is enough for me to understand

Someone spilled a coffee over the “and bear “part of their copy.

 

[Coyote33]

How does a POLL TAX figure into this discussion? You lost me there.

 

[Alex9661]

"we identified the core of the Second Amendment right as "the possession of operative firearms for use in defense of the home""

Somewhat off topic but saw that statement in the decision when they were discussing appropriate scrutiny, but if the state views that as the core of an individuals second amendment right, then isnt any license (restricted ltc..) or fee charged for said license to PURCHASE a firearm for the home basically a poll tax and unconstitutional and any challenge would have to be reviewed under strict scrutiny by the courts own admission because any restricted ltc is a tax and adds an unjust burden by the state for a law abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional right to keep a firearm in the home??

You're probably right, but challenging the constitutionality of a license to purchase a firearm requires filing another lawsuit and may be detrimental to Comm2A strategy.

 

[Garys]

A fee for a license, requiring a class before applying, and sales taxes on guns and ammunition are all taxes on the exercise of a Right protected in the Bill of Rights. Poll taxes and literacy tests before voting have been ruled unconstitutional. Exercise of the Second Amendment should receive the same level of deference.

"we identified the core of the Second Amendment right as "the possession of operative firearms for use in defense of the home""

Somewhat off topic but saw that statement in the decision when they were discussing appropriate scrutiny, but if the state views that as the core of an individuals second amendment right, then isnt any license (restricted ltc..) or fee charged for said license to PURCHASE a firearm for the home basically a poll tax and unconstitutional and any challenge would have to be reviewed under strict scrutiny by the courts own admission because any restricted ltc is a tax and adds an unjust burden by the state for a law abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional right to keep a firearm in the home??