Comm2A balances win/loss chances as part of the equation. It is not about what "what we would like to change" but "what we have a chance to change".
Non-citizen was a slam dunk with loads of instructive but non binding precedent from other districts. We called that correctly and won. We were also a new org, and the SAF agreed to fund that case.
The MJ case was risk, but a solid win.
We tried to deal with bonded warehouse abuses, and the Glock ban but didn't have as much luck with those.
Comm2a specializes in court work; GOAL handles legislative. The division is helpful since we don't have one group simultaneously negotiating and litigating with the same or closely allied parties.
Looking at your suggestions:
Stop state wide to extra requirements by the local PD (letters, training, anything).
- On what basis would you bring a case? What legal claim? State or federal? Do you think there is a chance the court would rule in our favor? Remember, the First Circuit federal court is definitely anti-gun rights. We need cases where the logic is so solid that there is no intellectually honest way for a court to rule against us (and sometimes even that is not enough)
A stop state wide to suitability denials.
- Once again, what claim? What chances of getting it to a win in a MA court?
Some teeth in the deadline, like we have in NH.
- This would be legislative, not judicial, as the courts cannot add a penalty to the law. When considering the legislative route, remember the MA Katrina Bill was at a point in the legislative process that is usually a fait accompli but was spiked because it contained penalties for police that violated it.
An elimination of restricted licenses state wide, an LTC is an LTC.
- The MA courts are already ignoring the change to standard in the statute - that is now based on "dangerousness". How would you formulate a claim in MA or federal court that stands a reasonable chance of winning? Restrictions are very hard to appeal in Federal court since Heller is silent on carry outside the home. We had one case bounced because the court accepted the assistant AG's lie that "the petitioner is asking for more than the minimum to exercise Heller rights since he can buy a handgun with a MA permit to purchase and keep it in his home if he has an FID". The case was specifically rejected because the federal court does not recognize "carry" (in the plain English sense of the word) as a right acknowledged under Heller and McDonald.
There may be room for federal action on suitability and restrictions if there is a favorable ruling in NY State Rifle & Pistol assn v. Bruen.
One of the problems in this area is that bringing a case and losing it moves the line a bit - by establishing a precedent that can be used against us. So Comm2a is VERY careful to take on cases where we are not facing a sure loss. It is not what one "wants to see" (if we chose based on "wants" those items on your list would be at the top of my list) but "can we move the needle a bit".
As to "squeaky clean plaintiffs" - we use that approach because our goal is to effect public policy changes, not maximize the chances for one individual. Those goals can be at direct odds with each other if there is a risk of adverse precedent. Although district court cases are not binding precedent, they are instructive, and every time a licensing case is lost it reinforces the viewpoint that such cases are just a waste of the court's time.
These aren't even big things. I'd even say a Bill with these "clarifications" would be ok if it added live fire to current training requirement (live fire like they have for Florida), to make it a "compromise"
That would in in GOAL's lane. But, remember, a bill submitted "On behalf of" a constituent or group, regardless of merit, is always referred to study (and no, that does not mean someone will study your bill - it's legislator speak for killed). If you want a bill to have any chance of passing, you need to find a legislator to sponsor it, which can be difficult..
