Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[WatchCityCPA]

I wonder if they might have to wait until someone gets denied an FID based on suitability first before they could file a case?

Probably shouldn't take very long for that to happen.

I'm just wondering which red town CLEO would be the frist one to do it?

Gentlemen... a few quick points:

First, courts are not a guaranteed outcome - even the strongest cases can be decided against the people in the right because of judges agendas.

Second, selecting a plaintiff to overturn a bad law is a damn difficult decision that I have no experience in... except to tell you it ain't going to be the first denial that triggers a lawsuit. Creating bad case law is much easier than creating good case law, and jumping on the first plaintiff to save time has a way of generating really bad case law.

Last... I love the work Comm2A foes, and am donating to them... but relying on them to fix bad laws instead of throwing the bums that bring you those bad laws out of power is merely a pathetic excuse used to avoid the hard work you really need to do to be free... Donate and volunteer for political candidates instead of expecting Comm2A to ride to the rescue (but keep donating to Comm2A too - one needs to use every possible avenue to achieve their goals)

 

[PaulD]

I've had mixed feelings about the "may issue" FID thing.

Part of me would like to see it passed and serve as an avenue to the SCOTUS challenging the whole MA licensing scheme.

OTOH... it could take anywhere from 3-5 years to get that far (DC v Heller took a little over 5 years from the time of filing,

to the court announcing it's decision), and that's assuming the court even decides to hear the case.

In that time frame, there could easily be at least one or two new justices appointed... and God help us all if HRC gets to

be the one who makes the nominations.

It wouldn't surprise me if that scenario is exactley what the anti's are hoping for.

I agree about it setting up a challenge, but it'd have to go to the circuit court first.

 

[Quiet]

Second, selecting a plaintiff to overturn a bad law is a damn difficult decision that I have no experience in... except to tell you it ain't going to be the first denial that triggers a lawsuit. Creating bad case law is much easier than creating good case law, and jumping on the first plaintiff to save time has a way of generating really bad case law.

I think they would be seeking an injunction (not a RO, sorry) to prevent a new, unconstitutional law violative of a fundamental right, they wouldn't be seeking to overturn the law (yet) and they wouldn't need a plaintiff, and a loss at that stage would I think be meaningless to the ultimate challenge of the law. A win might set up a constitutional challenge without a plaintiff.

But I'm not a lawyer, I really don't have a strong understanding of it and from what I gather it's not all black and white and rulings on injunctions seem to depend on the judge and if s/he had a fight with their spouse that week.

 

[cekim]

I think they would be seeking an injunction (not a RO, sorry) to prevent a new, unconstitutional law violative of a fundamental right, they wouldn't be seeking to overturn the law (yet) and they wouldn't need a plaintiff, and a loss at that stage would I think be meaningless to the ultimate challenge of the law. A win might set up a constitutional challenge without a plaintiff.

But I'm not a lawyer, I really don't have a strong understanding of it and from what I gather it's not all black and white and rulings on injunctions seem to depend on the judge and if s/he had a fight with their spouse that week.

The 1st circuit (Federal) is only slightly less hostile to our liberties than the SJC. I don't see them willing to issue such an injunction.

It would be a long road (years) during which time they would cleanse another large block of gun owners from the rolls and make it that much harder to convince elected critters on Bacon Hill that there is anything to lose from pushing us on to a train...

Long term, it forces the courts hands to our favor, BUT... They don't like us. They only begrudgingly side with us when all other choices are less attractive to them.

 

[Quiet]

Since the FID is the only (remaining) avenue to allow a homeowner ANY gun whatsoever in the home, I don't see how even the 1st circuit could rule against. But hey, let GOAL concentrate on that which will effect so few people and will be overturned and instead allow the legislature to take away private sales instead where it will take 20 years to get it reversed if ever. There is a good argument to be made that we can achieve the exact same results with a much less invasive way and earn our coveted Brady points and a huge PR win for the speaker.


I. Just. Don't. Get. It.


Someone from GOAL, please explain it so that even I can understand this strategy.

 

[bocan3]

At state house recently, testifying about HR4121, I heard what I deemed to be the definitive and absolute shredding of any and ALL of Mass' firearm "laws." This gentleman is a statistician and lives by, is liable for and dies by his numbers and conclusions, he stated, I'll paraphrase; Since the onset of MGL Ch180 in 1996, until today, the laws in Mass do NOT work. The decrease in ownership post 1996 correlates DIRECTLY with an increase in violent felon v. citizen related firearm crimes(the citizen most always LOSING, of course). Adding more laws to the existing body of ineffectual laws is, by definition of A. Einstein, "Insanity." This gentleman asked the Homeland Committee, "Why do you continue down a proven FAILED path to solution?" [Lowered firearms ownership DOES mean more crime, he factually called several Harvard Prof's and Martha Coakley, Linsky, Dept. Boston PD Commish etc, LIARS].
Conversely, in the mid 80's in Florida, there was an increase of tourist predation by the free range thuggies that was harming the states cash influx so...they analyzed the problem and deduced that their solution was to ease restrictions on LTC's and guess what? CRIME RATES NOSEDIVED! This gentleman proved this before the committee factually, statistically and logically yet... enough of them voted it out of committee and onward for further action. Facts are stubborn things. Carry on my friends...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I assume if the FID may issue became law, Comm2A would file for an immediate RO in Federal court based on SCOTUS decisions in McDonald/Heller, and they'd get paid back all of their legal expenses when they win.

But hey, I could be way off base.

I wonder if they might have to wait until someone gets denied an FID based on suitability first before they could file a case?

Probably shouldn't take very long for that to happen.

I'm just wondering which red town CLEO would be the frist one to do it?

Making the FID card 'may issue' doesn't materially change the way a challenge to suitability would be handled. Although the state and courts haven't gotten there yet, a restricted LTC is the minimum license needed in order for someone to exercise their 2A rights as described in Heller and McDonald. You cannot purchase a handgun with an FID (forget the PTP, it's a fiction) and you can't transport a handgun to a shooting range with and FID card. So the FID is immaterial.

Neither Comm2A nor anyone else can file for an injunction (not an RO) in federal court until someone actually applies for an FID card and is denied for some non-statutory reason. Some individual has to suffer an actual harm. It's the 'case or controversy' provision in Article III of the Constitution. Even then, it isn't likely that someone denied and FID card on suitability grounds is going to be a poster child plaintiff. Anyone denied an FID for suitability is probably applying for the FID card because they're statutorily barred from an LTC.

While chiefs certainly abuse their suitability discretion, finding pristine plaintiffs is harder than you might think. The ideal suitability plaintiff is one who refuses to conform to some BS non-statutory requirement like a doctor's letter or five notarized reference letters. However, I have yet to find a single person willing to play this game and delay their license in order to be the case that strikes down suitability. EVERYONE will suck it up and tolerate a chief's unconstitutional demands because that's the way to get a license.

Rather we're left with people denied LTCs usually for past brushes with the law that did not result in a conviction. Most of these people have criminal charges that were CWOF'c. While a CWOF is NOT a conviction in the eyes of the law, it's not exoneration either. Individuals who have accepted a CWOF are tainted because they've admitted that there is probably sufficient evidence for them to be convicted.

Finally, any good suitability challenge will probably not be against the chief of a so-called 'red' town. The worst abusers of suitability are often cheifs in 'green' towns.

 

[David Balkus]

With all due respect..I applied for My F.I.D. in October...In Feb. they asked me for a doctors note...In May they approved my F.I D. after I complied..I called The FRB and they said it was mailed to my local P.D. on June 17th,,,Now,The officer tells me she can't give to me until there computers are back up and running due to construction..Yes...It would seem they can j3rk you off all they want,,

Making the FID card 'may issue' doesn't materially change the way a challenge to suitability would be handled. Although the state and courts haven't gotten there yet, a restricted LTC is the minimum license needed in order for someone to exercise their 2A rights as described in Heller and McDonald. You cannot purchase a handgun with an FID (forget the PTP, it's a fiction) and you can't transport a handgun to a shooting range with and FID card. So the FID is immaterial.

Neither Comm2A nor anyone else can file for an injunction (not an RO) in federal court until someone actually applies for an FID card and is denied for some non-statutory reason. Some individual has to suffer an actual harm. It's the 'case or controversy' provision in Article III of the Constitution. Even then, it isn't likely that someone denied and FID card on suitability grounds is going to be a poster child plaintiff. Anyone denied an FID for suitability is probably applying for the FID card because they're statutorily barred from an LTC.

While chiefs certainly abuse their suitability discretion, finding pristine plaintiffs is harder than you might think. The ideal suitability plaintiff is one who refuses to conform to some BS non-statutory requirement like a doctor's letter or five notarized reference letters. However, I have yet to find a single person willing to play this game and delay their license in order to be the case that strikes down suitability. EVERYONE will suck it up and tolerate a chief's unconstitutional demands because that's the way to get a license.

Rather we're left with people denied LTCs usually for past brushes with the law that did not result in a conviction. Most of these people have criminal charges that were CWOF'c. While a CWOF is NOT a conviction in the eyes of the law, it's not exoneration either. Individuals who have accepted a CWOF are tainted because they've admitted that there is probably sufficient evidence for them to be convicted.

Finally, any good suitability challenge will probably not be against the chief of a so-called 'red' town. The worst abusers of suitability are often cheifs in 'green' towns.

 

[Dadstoys]

Making the FID card 'may issue' doesn't materially change the way a challenge to suitability would be handled. Although the state and courts haven't gotten there yet, a restricted LTC is the minimum license needed in order for someone to exercise their 2A rights as described in Heller and McDonald. You cannot purchase a handgun with an FID (forget the PTP, it's a fiction) and you can't transport a handgun to a shooting range with and FID card. So the FID is immaterial.

Neither Comm2A nor anyone else can file for an injunction (not an RO) in federal court until someone actually applies for an FID card and is denied for some non-statutory reason. Some individual has to suffer an actual harm. It's the 'case or controversy' provision in Article III of the Constitution. Even then, it isn't likely that someone denied and FID card on suitability grounds is going to be a poster child plaintiff. Anyone denied an FID for suitability is probably applying for the FID card because they're statutorily barred from an LTC.

While chiefs certainly abuse their suitability discretion, finding pristine plaintiffs is harder than you might think. The ideal suitability plaintiff is one who refuses to conform to some BS non-statutory requirement like a doctor's letter or five notarized reference letters. However, I have yet to find a single person willing to play this game and delay their license in order to be the case that strikes down suitability. EVERYONE will suck it up and tolerate a chief's unconstitutional demands because that's the way to get a license.

Rather we're left with people denied LTCs usually for past brushes with the law that did not result in a conviction. Most of these people have criminal charges that were CWOF'c. While a CWOF is NOT a conviction in the eyes of the law, it's not exoneration either. Individuals who have accepted a CWOF are tainted because they've admitted that there is probably sufficient evidence for them to be convicted.

Finally, any good suitability challenge will probably not be against the chief of a so-called 'red' town. The worst abusers of suitability are often cheifs in 'green' towns.

Would it be a more "pristine" candidate would be someone denied on renewal?
Say a FUDD who has had an FID for 30 years and a chief who's a flaming anti denies now that he can?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Would it be a more "pristine" candidate would be someone denied on renewal?
Say a FUDD who has had an FID for 30 years and a chief who's a flaming anti denies now that he can?

I will say it again suitability is BS and needs to be removed. its a blatant violation of our rights period. CWOF is NOT a conviction period, its that ****ing simple and the CLEO NEEDS to follow the current BS law. It needs to be a conviction and thats, that. **** off with this CWOF argument its getting old. Flame on boys.

 

[Bob P]

I wonder if they might have to wait until someone gets denied an FID based on suitability first before they could file a case?

Probably shouldn't take very long for that to happen.

I'm just wondering which red town CLEO would be the frist one to do it?

Comm2a has no standing. They would need a plaintiff. Someone who had been denied, was willing to sue, was squeaky clean as a plaintiff cause they're only going to get one shot. The cSe would have to go through superior court then to the SJC and then and only then might the SCOTUS MAYBE take it. That's a big maybe. You're talking years here and an iffy at best. More recent actions from SCOTUS suggest they don't want more 2A cases.

 

[Bob P]

Since the FID is the only (remaining) avenue to allow a homeowner ANY gun whatsoever in the home, I don't see how even the 1st circuit could rule against. But hey, let GOAL concentrate on that which will effect so few people and will be overturned and instead allow the legislature to take away private sales instead where it will take 20 years to get it reversed if ever. There is a good argument to be made that we can achieve the exact same results with a much less invasive way and earn our coveted Brady points and a huge PR win for the speaker.


I. Just. Don't. Get. It.


Someone from GOAL, please explain it so that even I can understand this strategy.

They just did. Multiple times. As did people from Comm2A. All are telling you the same thing, you just don't want to believe them.

 

[Horrible]

At state house recently, testifying about HR4121, I heard what I deemed to be the definitive and absolute shredding of any and ALL of Mass' firearm "laws." This gentleman is a statistician and lives by, is liable for and dies by his numbers and conclusions, he stated, I'll paraphrase; Since the onset of MGL Ch180 in 1996, until today, the laws in Mass do NOT work. The decrease in ownership post 1996 correlates DIRECTLY with an increase in violent felon v. citizen related firearm crimes(the citizen most always LOSING, of course). Adding more laws to the existing body of ineffectual laws is, by definition of A. Einstein, "Insanity." This gentleman asked the Homeland Committee, "Why do you continue down a proven FAILED path to solution?" [Lowered firearms ownership DOES mean more crime, he factually called several Harvard Prof's and Martha Coakley, Linsky, Dept. Boston PD Commish etc, LIARS].
Conversely, in the mid 80's in Florida, there was an increase of tourist predation by the free range thuggies that was harming the states cash influx so...they analyzed the problem and deduced that their solution was to ease restrictions on LTC's and guess what? CRIME RATES NOSEDIVED! This gentleman proved this before the committee factually, statistically and logically yet... enough of them voted it out of committee and onward for further action. Facts are stubborn things. Carry on my friends...

If Deleo and the other criminals on Bacon Hill gave a single $hit about facts and reducing crime, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[cekim]

They just did. Multiple times. As did people from Comm2A. All are telling you the same thing, you just don't want to believe them.

It's like trying to explain how a Supreme Court justice can look at "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law" and "no warrant shall issue, but for cause" and come to some other conclusion that they are permitted to "balance" infringements, laws and cause-less warrants (or warrant less 'causes).

They have created a legal fiction, historical fiction and political fiction that are all equally absurd and untenable, but they have a tyranny of the majority for the time being.

It doesn't have to make sense, but we have to recognize that exists primarily because of our apathy.

 

[ggboy]

I was reading in the WOrc paper how Deleo is pushing for his casino bill in spite of the referendum
opposing any casino in Ma. Have the profits already been figured into the Ma budget?
I will see if the other bill passes before I decide to vote on the other issue.
ggboy

- - - Updated - - -

31 days left.
ggboy

 

[Chevy 2 65]

If Deleo and the other criminals on Bacon Hill gave a single $hit about facts and reducing crime, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

They don't give a shit and feel they are the power of the land, thats the problem.

 

[mbullism]

Have the profits already been figured into the Ma budget?

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BOSTON — Anti-casino activists are calling on lawmakers not to include about $73 million in casino licensing and slot parlor revenues in the state budget they are set to finalize this week.

Repeal the Casino Deal chairman John Ribeiro, in a statement Monday, said the ''phantom'' revenue won't exist if voters repeal the casino law in November. The state's high court last week cleared the way for a voter referendum on the state's 2011 casino law, which authorized the licensing of up to three casinos and one slot parlor in the state.

A $36.5 billion House-Senate compromise budget reached over the weekend includes $53 million in casino licensing revenue and $20 million in slot licensing revenues. Lawmakers are due to vote on the budget bill Monday. The fiscal year starts Tuesday.

 

[Dadstoys]

They don't give a shit and feel they are the power of the land, thats the problem.

Power is an illusion.
It's only there when others let you have it.
A lion tamer only has it over the lion till the lion decides otherwise.

 

[OfficerObie59]

It's like trying to explain how a Supreme Court justice can look at "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law" and "no warrant shall issue, but for cause" and come to some other conclusion that they are permitted to "balance" infringements, laws and cause-less warrants (or warrant less 'causes).

They have created a legal fiction, historical fiction and political fiction that are all equally absurd and untenable, but they have a tyranny of the majority for the time being.

It doesn't have to make sense, but we have to recognize that exists primarily because of our apathy.

Are the courts upholding warrants issued based on standards less than probable cause? 'Cuz I musta missed that.

If your issue is warrantless searches, you're arguing the wrong part of the 4th Amendment. Warrantless searches are implicitly permitted, provided they are reasonable. Unlike the Second (and I would agree the First), the Fourth Amendment is not absolute. And I think arguing that it is not only conflicts with the text, but eschews a great contrast as to why the Second Amendment is absolute.

 

[rlee]

I received a letter from Senator Lovely (D - 2nd Essex) dated June 26, responding to my letter of June 5.
Actually, it was from her "Director of Constituent Services," the person that has to actually communicate with her constituents.
I am assured that my concerns have been forwarded to the Senator.

No reference to the bill's content at all.
No hints as to the Senator's position.
No indication that she's even read it.

I am not encouraged.

 

[mattyw]

got this email today:

Dear matt,

It's time to take action.

By now, you are aware that the Second Amendment is in jeopardy in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And the vote on H.4121 is coming up extremely soon.

In fact, we have learned that this draconian gun bill, sponsored by Speaker Robert DeLeo and pushed by Rep. Hank Naughton, will likely be voted on this week.

This bill is a full-on assault on our constitutional rights.

Already there are voices in the legislature telling us this bill can be "fixed" or that we should compromise. Those people could not be more wrong.

H.4121 is an assault on the Second Amendment and should be rejected in its entirety.

Why make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves? Why leave judgments of "suitability" in the hands of government bureaucrats?

The politicians will only vote to preserve your rights if they feel the pressure from you.

That’s why it’s critically important that you contact your State Representative NOW and tell them to oppose H.4121, the DeLeo-Naughton gun-grab bill!

You can find your State Representative by clicking here.

The restrictions on gun ownership do nothing to make our streets or our schools safer; they only make criminals of innocent citizens who are defending themselves and their families.

This vote will tell us loud and clear who the gun-grabbers are in our legislature.

If this bill passes, law-abiding citizens will find it even harder to defend themselves, their property, and their liberties through legal firearm ownership.

It's up to us to make sure this bill gets defeated.

That’s why it’s imperative that you contact your State Representative NOW and tell them to oppose H.4121, the DeLeo-Naughton gun-grab bill!

You can find your State Representative by clicking here.

If we join together, we can defeat the statists.

Keep fighting, and make sure to call your Representative today.

In Liberty,

Mark Mezzina
Massachusetts State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty

P.S. House bill H.4121, the DeLeo-Naughton gun-grab, will take away more of our constitutional liberties.

It’s critically important that you contact your State Representative NOW and tell them to oppose H.4121, the DeLeo-Naughton gun-grab bill!

You can find your State Representative by clicking here.

 

[Hamtramck]

Received a second response from Rhonda Nyman, this one unsolicited. States she expects major changes in the bill, compromise blah blah. wrote her back and told her the bill was beyond compromise, was only developed as a step to confiscation and needed to be
killed outright.

 

[ggboy]

So what happens if the Casino referendum wins and they don't have the money?
I assume that this is (at least ) part of the money that would go into Mental Health?
ggboy

 

[Coyote33]

In previous years they got distracted with other things like the Casino Bill...may not get so lucky this time. And it's a platform they all can use for re-election.

Casinos are back!

I just hope this doesn't deep six the pepper spray language, which was attached to the budget bill.

 

[Jbarila]

To my rep today.

Rep. Cantwell,

Your constituents are outraged with the attack on their second amendment rights. You will not commit on H4121 and people in your district are noticing. This term you are facing an opponent who is well coached and financed. Please do not alienate the lawful gun owners of Marshfield and Scituate. Remember there are two gun clubs in your district which means alot of votes. There is no fixing this bill and it needs to be killed. Be the hero and propose laws that will actually reduce crime and violence. The people this bill is attacking are not the problem and we have had enough. I see a groundswell of grass root activism and I would hate to see it cost you your seat. You have supported us in the past and I hope you will in the future. We will be reaching out to you after the holiday to discuss H4121 and why it is so destructive.

 

[cekim]

Are the courts upholding warrants issued based on standards less than probable cause? 'Cuz I musta missed that.

If your issue is warrantless searches, you're arguing the wrong part of the 4th Amendment. Warrantless searches are implicitly permitted, provided they are reasonable. Unlike the Second (and I would agree the First), the Fourth Amendment is not absolute. And I think arguing that it is not only conflicts with the text, but eschews a great contrast as to why the Second Amendment is absolute.

My point was that 4A sets a high bar that is ignored and lost with kicking doors because of toilet flushes or patdowns at airports or border security checks 100 miles in and so on and so forth...

The founders had a much more absolute view of home as your castle and personal privacy and security as inviolate. I don't believe for a second they would sanction anything close to what is being called "reasonable" today...

"Reasonable" is a tautology...

 

[ggboy]

Maybe casino's are not back. Along with thier income.'
ggboy
Does "achiles heel ring a bell"?

 

[jtnf]

eMail missive sent. Got a bounce from Rep Hulik acknowledging receipt, and deMacedo's mailbox is full.

 

[jtnf]

First actual response:

Thank you for your email regarding H.4121. This bill was poorly crafted, and I voted for an Ought Not to Pass recommendation in the Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee. The favorable report passed by only one vote. I plan to vote against reporting this bill out of the House Ways & Means Committee unless there are substantial changes which protect the rights of law abiding gun owners.

David T. Vieira
State Representative
Third Barnstable District
State House, Rm. 167
Boston, MA 02133
Boston Office: 617-722-2230
District Office: 508-548-VOTE (8683)

COMMITTEES:
House Committee on Ways & Means
Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security
House Committee on Rules
House Committee on Personnel & Administration

 

[ggboy]

WHo is Cantwell's opponent. A link would be appreciated.
ggboy