Hightower V. Boston

logan1171 · Sep 30, 2011

Decision is in, Motion for Summary Judgement Denied

http://comm2a.com/index.php?option=...ht-to-carry-discretionary-licensing&Itemid=38

OfficerObie59 · Sep 30, 2011

Whose summary judgment motion was denied?

Without digging into the record, it looked like both parties moved for it (cross motion). When SJ is denied on a cross-motion, either there are facts in dispute, or as is more likely here, each party has some decent arguments to be heard.

spider murphy · Sep 30, 2011

OfficerObie59 said:
Whose summary judgment motion was denied?

"...For the reasons discussed above, Hightower’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED,
and the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED."

rlee · Sep 30, 2011

I got bogged down in the legalese, but it appears that playing a part was the fact that Hightower didn't reapply for a LTC after being denied. [thinking]

TheRoland · Sep 30, 2011

This was a thrashing. The court essentially went on to opine that there was nothing wrong with arbitrarily revoking licenses and confiscating firearms, because one could always appeal.

spider murphy · Sep 30, 2011

Johnny D said:
Excuse my public school education but,

what does this mean, I'm only trained on stuff they asked me on the MCAS

It means that we were beaten so badly, that we may not make it and were so brutalized in the process that our mothers will not be able to hold an open coffin viewing if we do indeed pass on.

terraformer · Sep 30, 2011

We are appealing. See the Hightower thread in Comm2a's forum for more.

highlander · Sep 30, 2011

I was going to read the summary but 40+ pages to explain the decision,my head would explode trying to decipher it.

jar · Sep 30, 2011

Here's Patrick's summary from the MDShooters forum.

- Second Amendment claim not ripe because plaintiff has no Second Amendment right to carry a firearm on her person outside the home.

- Public Safety/Substantial Interest

- 2A Two-Step (the right does not exist so we can apply rational basis dressed up as something else to dispose of the claim)

- In the Home

- Concealed Weapons are categorically allowed to be banned under Heller

- If the Supreme Court means to protect public carry, they will need to do it themselves because I won't have any role in extending this right.

Blah, blah, blah.

Give the judge credit for writing what she would have done had the Second Amendment been ripe in her eyes. This is good fodder for appeal. She could have just ignored it all and put off most of the two-step for another day.

It was a thrashing in the sense that we didn't get much out of it, but this was to be expected. Some arguments are destined for higher courts. I'm just glad we got a decision at this level before the supremes decide which cases they're taking, which will probably pause this and other carry cases.

Tater · Sep 30, 2011

open carry protest time outside the state supreme court.

jar · Sep 30, 2011

Tater said:
open carry protest time outside the state supreme court.

Why? This case was decided by the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

yanici · Sep 30, 2011

Tater said:
open carry protest time outside the state supreme court.

I'd be in if I could figure out how to mount my S&W into my holster while being unloaded and secured in a locked case. Probably need a trigger guard on it too.

terraformer · Sep 30, 2011

yanici said:
I'd be in if I could figure out how to mount my S&W into my holster while being unloaded and secured in a locked case. Probably need a trigger guard on it too.

terraformer · Sep 30, 2011

jar said:
we didn't get much out of it, but this was to be expected.

We got more out of it then meets the eye actually.

jar · Sep 30, 2011

terraformer said:
We got more out of it then meets the eye actually.

The implication that discretion for restricted LTC-A is probably unconstitutional is one positive. The other thing I think is probably useful for us is that the decision went into 2A analysis even though the 2A claims were dismissed as unripe. This may save some steps when the whole line of reasoning gets smacked down by a higher court.

TheRoland · Sep 30, 2011

jar said:
The implication that discretion for restricted LTC-A is probably unconstitutional is one positive. .

Likewise the implication that bear requires that a license must actually include carry (although unloaded, boxed, and locked was not discussed).

terraformer · Sep 30, 2011

Mods, can we get this thread merged with the one in the Comm2A forum on the same topic? Muchas Gracias.

OfficerObie59 · Oct 1, 2011

jar said:
The other thing I think is probably useful for us is that the decision went into 2A analysis even though the 2A claims were dismissed as unripe. This may save some steps when the whole line of reasoning gets smacked down by a higher court.

I'm generally not in favor of judicial activism even if it favors a position I happen to heavily support.

A court has no business discussing constitutional liberties and rights if it chooses to dismiss a case on lesser grounds.

terraformer · Oct 26, 2011

Notice of Appeal was filed tonight. Onward and Upward.

terraformer · Nov 2, 2011

The case was docketed today. The first circuit docket number is 11-2281.

logan1171 · Nov 3, 2011

terraformer said:
The case was docketed today. The first circuit docket number is 11-2281.

COOL!!!

terraformer · Apr 30, 2012

Hightower Reply Brief filed in 1st circuit. Hearing scheduled for June 6.
Hit here for the brief. It's the last entry dated today.
http://www.comm2a.org/discretionary-licensing-right-to-carry/58-hightower-v-boston

jar · May 1, 2012

These briefs just get better and better.

dixidawg · May 1, 2012

Wow.

Is it possible that the court could rule very broadly on this? Suitability, high capacity, etc and strike down a lot of the Mass BS in one fell swoop?

terraformer · May 1, 2012

dixidawg said:
Wow.

Is it possible that the court could rule very broadly on this? Suitability, high capacity, etc and strike down a lot of the Mass BS in one fell swoop?

No. Just carry and possibly suitability as a whole, or some part of it. Suitability is a multi-headed hydra.

Jude Thaddeus · May 1, 2012

dixidawg said:
Wow.

Is it possible that the court could rule very broadly on this? Suitability, high capacity, etc and strike down a lot of the Mass BS in one fell swoop?

That is what I am hoping for. By these asinine rules being struck down, it will help many people, not just in MA.

Rob Boudrie · May 1, 2012

Anyone who harbors any delusions about filing a pro-se gun rights case should read the entire set of filings to get an idea how much work goes into a competently prepared case.

drgrant · May 1, 2012

terraformer said:
No. Just carry and possibly suitability as a whole, or some part of it. Suitability is a multi-headed hydra.

At some point doesn't this also deal with the whole "you need an LTC to buy a handgun" thing as well, or is that something incidental, but not discussed?

-Mike

terraformer · May 1, 2012

drgrant said:
At some point doesn't this also deal with the whole "you need an LTC to buy a handgun" thing as well, or is that something incidental, but not discussed?

-Mike

Different issue and not one likely to be dealt with through that narrow issue. If licenses are required, the licensing scheme the state puts in place will have some latitude in how it operates so long as it doesn't dissuade ownership. I hold out hope that licensing is thrown down the rat hole to die however and I wouldn't do it based on low capacity firearms having an exemption.

edhead35 · May 2, 2012

terraformer said:
low capacity firearms

I like the way you word this.

I love to refer to anything 10 rounds or less as low capacity when talking with people who aren't gun people.I refer to anything 10 rounds or higher as standard capacity. If most of the country doesn't restrict what we know as high capacity, they are standard in my opinion. If only a few places limits to 10 rounds, why would those magazines get the standard capacity tag?

Hightower V. Boston

Similar threads