House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Though having looked at Section 51 while posting that I see it ultimately has questionable teeth since even if the judge finds the denial or restrictions unreasonable he "may order" the issuance or removal of restrictions.

So even if the judge agrees the CLEO is full of it, the judge apparently can choose to do nothing and let the unreasonable infringement stand.
 
lagrangian said:
Though having looked at Section 51 while posting that I see it ultimately has questionable teeth since even if the judge finds the denial or restrictions unreasonable he "may order" the issuance or removal of restrictions.

So even if the judge agrees the CLEO is full of it, the judge apparently can choose to do nothing and let the unreasonable infringement stand.
Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable to me.[smile]
 
lagrangian said:
Though having looked at Section 51 while posting that I see it ultimately has questionable teeth since even if the judge finds the denial or restrictions unreasonable he "may order" the issuance or removal of restrictions.

So even if the judge agrees the CLEO is full of it, the judge apparently can choose to do nothing and let the unreasonable infringement stand.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the legislature can order the judiciary.
However, they could have simply stated
If the restrictions or denial are found to be unreasonable, the COP shall issue pursuant to the courts findings.
 
lagrangian said:
Though having looked at Section 51 while posting that I see it ultimately has questionable teeth since even if the judge finds the denial or restrictions unreasonable he "may order" the issuance or removal of restrictions.

So even if the judge agrees the CLEO is full of it, the judge apparently can choose to do nothing and let the unreasonable infringement stand.
Click to expand...

I suspect the judge, should she/he be an anti-gun one, would simply find the denial or restrictions "reasonable".

To find them unreasonable but fail to order the restriction lifted or licence issued, he'd have to do it in writing, and that would play poorly in the press, even a left wing press. I'd guess (and I'm now out of my depth) it would also open the ruling to appeal.
 
Whiskeyjim said:
What's the alternate way to conduct a legal FTF transfer in the event of power outage, or in areas with no internet service or disruption in network coverage, or between persons without access to electronic gizmos, or between those with neither the inclination to buy them nor learn how to use them?
Click to expand...

The children's section at the local public library usually has public computers.
 
lagrangian said:
I'm pretty sure it can. For example, in the section on the FID appeals, the bill says that if the court hasn't acted by the relevant 90- or 75-day deadlines the court "shall enter a judgement of suitability."
Click to expand...
Didn't think about that - too bad that language didn't cover both licenses
 
milktree said:
I suspect the judge, should she/he be an anti-gun one, would simply find the denial or restrictions "reasonable".

To find them unreasonable but fail to order the restriction lifted or licence issued, he'd have to do it in writing, and that would play poorly in the press, even a left wing press. I'd guess (and I'm now out of my depth) it would also open the ruling to appeal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's an excellent point.
 
lagrangian said:
I'm pretty sure it can. For example, in the section on the FID appeals, the bill says that if the court hasn't acted by the relevant 90- or 75-day deadlines the court "shall enter a judgement of suitability."
Click to expand...

shall enter a judgement of suitability or suitable?
 
lagrangian said:
I'm pretty sure it can. For example, in the section on the FID appeals, the bill says that if the court hasn't acted by the relevant 90- or 75-day deadlines the court "shall enter a judgement of suitability."
Click to expand...

Which I'm thinking could occur frequently?

That way, if someone goes Postal and steals a plane from Beverly airport and then shoots up the tollbooths on a Tobin Bridge fly-over (remember that one back in the 80s? LOL!), the CoP can lay all of the "blame" on the judiciary and thereby wash his hands of it? Yes?

("Look, I really TRIED to make sure this guy didn't get the FID card which allowed him to buy the gun, but the courts didn't follow up in time, so can I keep my $140k a year plus pension, please?)
51ftQKsULSL._SY445_.jpg
 
GlockJock said:
Which I'm thinking could occur frequently?

That way, if someone goes Postal and steals a plane from Beverly airport and then shoots up the tollbooths on a Tobin Bridge fly-over (remember that one back in the 80s? LOL!), the CoP can lay all of the "blame" on the judiciary and thereby wash his hands of it? Yes?

("Look, I really TRIED to make sure this guy didn't get the FID card which allowed him to buy the gun, but the courts didn't follow up in time, so can I keep my $140k a year plus pension, please?)
View attachment 110471
Click to expand...

There's no legal liability whatsoever for the CoP for the actions of LTC or FID holders
 
milktree said:
I suspect the judge, should she/he be an anti-gun one, would simply find the denial or restrictions "reasonable".

To find them unreasonable but fail to order the restriction lifted or licence issued, he'd have to do it in writing, and that would play poorly in the press, even a left wing press. I'd guess (and I'm now out of my depth) it would also open the ruling to appeal.
Click to expand...
The argument for removing the restrictions is pretty simple, say the aggrieved lives in Lowell - "your honor, every town that surrounds me, their residents have unrestricted licenses and can walk up my street carrying concealed,yet, I can't do the same. Please tell me how that is a fair application of the law?"
 
Mike S said:
The argument for removing the restrictions is pretty simple, say the aggrieved lives in Lowell - "your honor, every town that surrounds me, their residents have unrestricted licenses and can walk up my street carrying concealed,yet, I can't do the same. Please tell me how that is a fair application of the law?"
Click to expand...

Answer is: Well, it appears that those surrounding towns need to rethink their restrictions.

Just bustin' 'em. No harm.
 
Mike S said:
The argument for removing the restrictions is pretty simple, say the aggrieved lives in Lowell - "your honor, every town that surrounds me, their residents have unrestricted licenses and can walk up my street carrying concealed,yet, I can't do the same. Please tell me how that is a fair application of the law?"
Click to expand...

This sounds like an EP argument. The problem there is, the very fact that you are in a different town under a different licensing authority with a different policy kills any EP argument. The two parties are not similarly situated. No EP violation. Don't feel bad, most lawyers don't understand that distinction, much less people who read the words of the constitution using their plain english meaning.

But somewhere along the way a judge and then a few more judges until the supreme court decided to narrowly scope the equal protection clause to be mostly meaningless. Oh yeah, those were judges looking to protect racist and discriminatory laws aimed at blacks. Shocked? I thought not.
 
Did Chap 140 sec. 129B(1)(vii) and 140 sec. 131(d)(v)

get nuked officially? (it's the bit that says you can't have an LTC or FID if you're an alien)

I know the courts nuked it, but did it actually get changed in the legislation to reflect that?

Edit:

nevermind: The text for 129B changes it to

(vi) is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency;
Click to expand...

and for 131:

(v) is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency;
Click to expand...

which basically means (If I'm reading it right) if you're not a US citizen you can't get a non-resident LTC in MA. (right?)
 
Last edited:
milktree said:
I know the courts nuked it, but did it actually get changed in the legislation to reflect that?
Click to expand...

Yes, they changed "is an alien" to "is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency."
 
jasons said:
Yes, they changed "is an alien" to "is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency."
Click to expand...

Does that mean "lawful permanent residency in MA" or "... in the US"?

Does that exclude anyone on a work visa or student visa? I'm guessing that "tourist visa" is pretty clearly not permanent. :)

Is "permanent resident" a term of art that's understood?
 
milktree said:
Does that mean "lawful permanent residency in MA" or "... in the US"?

Does that exclude anyone on a work visa or student visa? I'm guessing that "tourist visa" is pretty clearly not permanent. :)

Is "permanent resident" a term of art that's understood?
Click to expand...

Anyone....it's not illegal to be illegal in Ma. [thinking]
 
terraformer said:
This sounds like an EP argument. The problem there is, the very fact that you are in a different town under a different licensing authority with a different policy kills any EP argument. The two parties are not similarly situated. No EP violation. Don't feel bad, most lawyers don't understand that distinction, much less people who read the words of the constitution using their plain english meaning.

But somewhere along the way a judge and then a few more judges until the supreme court decided to narrowly scope the equal protection clause to be mostly meaningless. Oh yeah, those were judges looking to protect racist and discriminatory laws aimed at blacks. Shocked? I thought not.
Click to expand...

Yeeesh.

"Prove, using credible and articulable evidence to show how I am or may be a threat to myself, others in my household or public safety" will be the first cases.

Where it goes from there will be determined by the outcome of those hearings, I imagine.
 
mlaboss said:
"Lawful permanent resident" = "Green card holder"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_residence_(United_States)
Click to expand...

Thanks.

So, no student or work visas then.

How does that fit in with Fletcher v. Haas? My reading says that it doesn't include anything but permanent residents, but also doesn't exclude them from, should a case make it to court.

Given that many H-1B or student visa holders are likely to be in the US as residents for quite a long time, (at least four years) I'd think it should apply, but... I'm biased that way.
 
milktree said:
Thanks.

So, no student or work visas then.

How does that fit in with Fletcher v. Haas? My reading says that it doesn't include anything but permanent residents, but also doesn't exclude them from, should a case make it to court.

Given that many H-1B or student visa holders are likely to be in the US as residents for quite a long time, (at least four years) I'd think it should apply, but... I'm biased that way.
Click to expand...

i"m with ya

- - - Updated - - -

Can anyone tell me what the definition of a prohibited person is in this law?
 
Quiet said:
Yeeesh.

"Prove, using credible and articulable evidence to show how I am or may be a threat to myself, others in my household or public safety" will be the first cases.

Where it goes from there will be determined by the outcome of those hearings, I imagine.
Click to expand...

+1 since it will be the COP job to prove why you need to be restricted and with someone who has an 100% clean record and has jumped through all the necessary hoops. very interested in how this does play out
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

House Republicans sell us out
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
EJFudd
EJFudd
ATF Redefines All Private Sales & Who Has To Have A FFL
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
42!
42!
ATF at the behest of the White House attempt to ban all private firearm transactions
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
spt_1955
spt_1955
Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
438
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
Back
Top Bottom