• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

D

Dr. Kang Lu

Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
72
Likes
304
Location
New England
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
20220915 --- Action for Declaratory Judgment Filed in Suffolk County Superior Court.

20220916 --- Service made upon defendants Maura Healey AGO and Terrence Reidy secretary of EOPSS.
20220923 --- Service made upon defendant Anthony Gulluni Hampden County DA.

The game is up. No more lying to the American people. It's time to admit to the following:

The background check requirement for the license to carry is "for the purpose of evaluating applicants for employment, volunteer opportunities, or professional licensing,..." see 803 CMR 2.00 ("We interpret a regulation in the same manner as a statute, and according to traditional rules of construction." Warcewicz v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 410 Mass. 548 (1991))

The fingerprint submission requirement for the license to carry is set forth at G. L. c. 6, § 172B.5: "Municipalities may ... require applicants for licenses in specified occupations to submit a full set of fingerprints..."

The $100 fee required for the license to carry "shall be payable to the licensing authority" see G. L. c. 140, § 131(i); where a "'licensing authority' shall include an agency...with the authority to impose occupational fees or licensing requirements on a profession." see G. L. c. 6, § 172N.

Can it be shown that the license to carry is anything other than a professional license in a specified occupation?
 

Attachments

  • 20220915, Action for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.pdf
    258.9 KB · Views: 45
  • 20220915, Request for Admissions, Healey.pdf
    114.2 KB · Views: 13
  • 20220915, Request for Production, Healey.pdf
    90.6 KB · Views: 11
Dr. Kang Lu said:
20220915 --- Action for Declaratory Judgment Filed in Suffolk County Superior Court.

20220916 --- Service made upon defendants Maura Healey AGO and Terrence Reidy secretary of EOPSS.
20220923 --- Service made upon defendant Anthony Gulluni Hampden County DA.

The game is up. No more lying to the American people. It's time to admit to the following:

The background check requirement for the license to carry is "for the purpose of evaluating applicants for employment, volunteer opportunities, or professional licensing,..." see 803 CMR 2.00 ("We interpret a regulation in the same manner as a statute, and according to traditional rules of construction." Warcewicz v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 410 Mass. 548 (1991))

The fingerprint submission requirement for the license to carry is set forth at G. L. c. 6, § 172B.5: "Municipalities may ... require applicants for licenses in specified occupations to submit a full set of fingerprints..."

The $100 fee required for the license to carry "shall be payable to the licensing authority" see G. L. c. 140, § 131(i); where a "'licensing authority' shall include an agency...with the authority to impose occupational fees or licensing requirements on a profession." see G. L. c. 6, § 172N.

Can it be shown that the license to carry is anything other than a professional license in a specified occupation?
Click to expand...

Say you were to win...aside from winning, what type of precedent are we talking about here?
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
Say you were to win...aside from winning, what type of precedent are we talking about here?
Click to expand...

He's not going to win. One would have to concede his erroneous point that only livery drivers would need a "driver's license." It's that Sovereign Citizen type argument. That any license is a professional license.

I guess the argument is the original-intent of the word license was professional. I'd also point out that LTC's used to be known as. . . . . pistol permits. Not licenses. It's a semantics argument. The meaning of the word changed and verbiage changed with it. There is no constitutional definition of a license.

I love that he's tying people up, but it's a no-go. Even in a "friendly" state he's doomed.
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
Say you were to win...aside from winning, what type of precedent are we talking about here?
Click to expand...

Worst case scenario? The court agrees and pulls all LTC's unless your police, Mil, or similar.

Best case scenario? Chuckles.

Dennis in MA said:
He's not going to win. One would have to concede his erroneous point that only livery drivers would need a "driver's license." It's that Sovereign Citizen type argument. That any license is a professional license.

I guess the argument is the original-intent of the word license was professional. I'd also point out that LTC's used to be known as. . . . . pistol permits. Not licenses. It's a semantics argument. The meaning of the word changed and verbiage changed with it. There is no constitutional definition of a license.

I love that he's tying people up, but it's a no-go. Even in a "friendly" state he's doomed.
Click to expand...

Yup. The law matters but precedent matters more, there's no win here.
 
Dennis in MA said:
He's not going to win. One would have to concede his erroneous point that only livery drivers would need a "driver's license." It's that Sovereign Citizen type argument. That any license is a professional license.

I guess the argument is the original-intent of the word license was professional. I'd also point out that LTC's used to be known as. . . . . pistol permits. Not licenses. It's a semantics argument. The meaning of the word changed and verbiage changed with it. There is no constitutional definition of a license.

I love that he's tying people up, but it's a no-go. Even in a "friendly" state he's doomed.
Click to expand...

If he were in a friendly state then we'd all be laughing over this. The fact that we even have to have a discussion when no discussion should even be necessary is what troubles me. Also the cops involved in this instead of being special officer doofies they could have said "Hey knock it off and go back to NH before we have to arrest you". But common sense and law enforcement do not exist any longer.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
If he were in a friendly state then we'd all be laughing over this. The fact that we even have to have a discussion when no discussion should even be necessary is what troubles me. Also the cops involved in this instead of being special officer doofies they could have said "Hey knock it off and go back to NH before we have to arrest you". But common sense and law enforcement do not exist any longer.
Click to expand...
6E338128-E21A-4C8B-9BBB-313BC23DEFDC.jpeg
 
VetteGirlMA said:
If he were in a friendly state then we'd all be laughing over this. The fact that we even have to have a discussion when no discussion should even be necessary is what troubles me. Also the cops involved in this instead of being special officer doofies they could have said "Hey knock it off and go back to NH before we have to arrest you". But common sense and law enforcement do not exist any longer.
Click to expand...

Sure. But if I'm in State X and you're in State Y and State Y has a LTC system and you don't adhere to it, you're gonna get in trouble. The guy is spouting too much legal chapter-and-verse to think that he was not aware of the MA lic requirements.

That said, pulling a sovereign citizen type argument is going to go nowhere. Just because you believe something doesn't make it correct.
 
Dennis in MA said:
He's not going to win. One would have to concede his erroneous point that only livery drivers would need a "driver's license." It's that Sovereign Citizen type argument. That any license is a professional license.

I guess the argument is the original-intent of the word license was professional. I'd also point out that LTC's used to be known as. . . . . pistol permits. Not licenses. It's a semantics argument. The meaning of the word changed and verbiage changed with it. There is no constitutional definition of a license.

I love that he's tying people up, but it's a no-go. Even in a "friendly" state he's doomed.
Click to expand...

That government doesn’t care and will never concede, doesn’t make him wrong.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Sure. But if I'm in State X and you're in State Y and State Y has a LTC system and you don't adhere to it, you're gonna get in trouble. The guy is spouting too much legal chapter-and-verse to think that he was not aware of the MA lic requirements.

That said, pulling a sovereign citizen type argument is going to go nowhere. Just because you believe something doesn't make it correct.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that I should be able to put a pistol in my pocket and drive across country from sea to shining sea without fear of arrest by crossing an imaginary line on the ground. The fact that we even have to discuss it at all is just tacitly saying "Go ahead infringe away, I don't mind at all". I'd be all for jury nullification in this case and probably many more people who are jammed up by our fleet of special officer doofys even if the people jammed up were gang bangers. Funny thing is if one of those officer doofys found themselves bleeding out on the side of the road they would be ever so grateful for having their life saved by a passing doctor. The fact that they don't care when the shoe is on the other foot tells me all I need to know about the state of police power in this country.
 
So much fail Doc, read my Comm 2A thread, your criminal case hasn’t even been heard, except your first attempt at self lawyering and obviously that didn’t go well & now you’re doubling down on stupid, to me it’s just painting the big bull’s-eye on your arse.

Look Veteran to Veteran I had 20 months experience with the courts in Massachusetts.. You’re gonna have to come up with a better strategy or you will be sorry. I hope for a miracle for you but I honestly believe you don’t know what you’re facing.
 
Bonesinium said:
That government doesn’t care and will never concede, doesn’t make him wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But his argument does. See how well stating you don't need a driver's license b/c you aren't a livery driver goes. It's the same argument. He's fighting a technicality that will never get anywhere. I guess he's hoping that throwing all of this against a wall delays the inevitable. If that's his strategy, I commend him. If he truly believes what he wrote in those court documents, there are screws that need tightening. LOL

VetteGirlMA said:
I'm just pointing out that I should be able to put a pistol in my pocket and drive across country from sea to shining sea without fear of arrest by crossing an imaginary line on the ground. The fact that we even have to discuss it at all is just tacitly saying "Go ahead infringe away, I don't mind at all". I'd be all for jury nullification in this case and probably many more people who are jammed up by our fleet of special officer doofys even if the people jammed up were gang bangers. Funny thing is if one of those officer doofys found themselves bleeding out on the side of the road they would be ever so grateful for having their life saved by a passing doctor. The fact that they don't care when the shoe is on the other foot tells me all I need to know about the state of police power in this country.
Click to expand...

On that I concur. How we mete out justice in this country is screwy. I mean, look at hte LangKang case overall. He was charged with all sorts of things. Then they dropped it all the way to the gun charge. They COULD have prosecuted on it all. They pick and chose. For a gangbanger, they NEVER choose the gun charge. For "regular people" they seem to ALWAYS choose the gun charge, no matter how minor. Which rolls back to Bonesy's point, which is also valid. They do things to remain in power, not to mete out justice fairly.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Yeah. But his argument does. See how well stating you don't need a driver's license b/c you aren't a livery driver goes. It's the same argument. He's fighting a technicality that will never get anywhere. I guess he's hoping that throwing all of this against a wall delays the inevitable. If that's his strategy, I commend him. If he truly believes what he wrote in those court documents, there are screws that need tightening. LOL



On that I concur. How we mete out justice in this country is screwy. I mean, look at hte LangKang case overall. He was charged with all sorts of things. Then they dropped it all the way to the gun charge. They COULD have prosecuted on it all. They pick and chose. For a gangbanger, they NEVER choose the gun charge. For "regular people" they seem to ALWAYS choose the gun charge, no matter how minor. Which rolls back to Bonesy's point, which is also valid. They do things to remain in power, not to mete out justice fairly.
Click to expand...

Exactly and the point I see is that, let's just say for a moment that this November Massachusetts flipped red. I know it's mathematically impossible, but let's say it did. Do you think the people who were on the receiving end of one sided justice are going to want to sit there and let their tormentor walk freely? No and what we end up with is a vicious cycle when a hurts b, a loses the power to hurt b and now b is free to hurt a. That's not justice it's payback. What the people in power right now tend to miss is that power is not forever. Massachusetts will not be blue forever. It might be for several generations but not forever. Corruption whether it's financial or corruption of power catches up eventually. It's a stupid way to run a rail road but I can see why people who have been harmed by their government demand retribution when they have the chance.
 
lol, Baker is as red as Ma is gonna flip, and the majority of Rs have said they prefer clowns like Healey run the state cause at least she’s not a rino, so stand by.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Yeah. But his argument does. See how well stating you don't need a driver's license b/c you aren't a livery driver goes.
Click to expand...

Dennis, when was the last time you were pulled over in your own driveway, or on your own property for operating a motor vehicle without a license?

If the answer is never, then you ought to get the point:

The license entitles your performance in public. It doesn't apply to your right to travel on your own property, or to bear arms for yourself.

The LTC "entitles the holder thereof to...possess and carry...firearms," see G. L. c. 140, § 131 ... " "in the performance of ... duties" see G. L. c. 147, § 8A or G. L. c. 147, § 29A. or officers "within the scope of his duties" see G. L. c. 140, § 131P.

Can you find me where it says "carry" for one's personal use?

With guys like you, who needs Maura to oppress us?
 

Similar threads

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturns dismissal of CT's Nastri v. Dykes (CT park carry ban)
Replies
0
Views
121
sbhaven
S
Pdp v canik
Replies
7
Views
335
wcorey
W
True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets
Replies
24
Views
434
drgrant
drgrant
Media Claims Violent Crime is Down As Machete Lunatics Attack Cops
Replies
0
Views
93
Reptile
Reptile
American tourist facing possible 12-year prison sentence after ammo found in luggage in Turks and Caicos
2 3
Replies
84
Views
1K
B35
B
Back
Top Bottom