Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

That's one of the problems with MA gun laws: there are no definitions. I think if they ever rewrote MA gun laws, they should start with a table of definitions, so everything that follows is congruent and consistent.

That is the inherent problem with Massachusetts legislation for a long time. They write vague laws and leave it for courts to figure out. That problem has been going on for decades.
 
Licensing has not been addressed by SCOTUS simply because the foundation for that argument is still being formed.
However given the findings in Heller licenses for simple possession, especially in the home, cannot be constitutional under heightened scrutiny. Once proper scrutiny as defined by Bruen is applied there is no question that the right to possess arms particularly in the home cannot be encumbered by bureaucratic process or fees.
The groundwork is still working its way through the courts but NY is trying to speed things up and short circuit a few steps with their recent everywhere is sensitive and no one is suitable laws.

The doctor's only chance at surviving these charges is to drop the idea of arguing licenses are only for professionals idiocy and take up a licensing is not rooted in Text, History and Tradition but it is demonstrably rooted in vicious racism and must be struck in order to level the playing field.
 
"Carrying" under 10(a) does not apply if you are on your property or at your place of business. "Possession" under 10(h)(1) applies regardless of whether you are on your property or place of business, however certain exceptions are in play. Training without a LTC is permissible so long as: a) you are not a prohibited person; and, b) you are under the direct supervision of someone who does have a LTC.

If you own 1,000 acres - can I come over? Yes, you can shoot on your property, but that does not exempt you from FID/LTC requirements for possession of a firearm.

I'm not saying that's not true. I'm pointing out that nowhere in the jury instructions will that be found. The case the commonwealth has to prove are based on different criteria and the more I think about this I really think Dr Kang is onto something here. If I own land and I want to set up a target range I should have ability to shoot on that land whether or not I physically live on the land or came there from somewhere else.
 
That's one of the problems with MA gun laws: there are no definitions. I think if they ever rewrote MA gun laws, they should start with a table of definitions, so everything that follows is congruent and consistent.
Aaand ill take "things That will never happen....." for 1000, Alex. As @pastera says, in this case, you reeeeealy don't want that to happen....
 
I'm not saying that's not true. I'm pointing out that nowhere in the jury instructions will that be found. The case the commonwealth has to prove are based on different criteria and the more I think about this I really think Dr Kang is onto something here. If I own land and I want to set up a target range I should have ability to shoot on that land whether or not I physically live on the land or came there from somewhere else.
You can. You are simply prohibited from possessing the firearm you intend to shoot (in Dr. Kang’s case).
 
That is the inherent problem with Massachusetts legislation for a long time. They write vague laws and leave it for courts to figure out. That problem has been going on for decades.

Yes they are vague. For 2 reasons, I think.

1 because they were written by idiots who know nothing about guns
2 they keep it this way so they can have press conferences to change the common understanding of those laws

So I’m behind the doc here. Use the vagueness to your advantage
 
Yes they are vague. For 2 reasons, I think.

1 because they were written by idiots who know nothing about guns
2 they keep it this way so they can have press conferences to change the common understanding of those laws

So I’m behind the doc here. Use the vagueness to your advantage
Reason #3, lawmakers want a way to avoid consequences as well. Being vague helps with cases being dismissed.
 
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.
how many licenses are required to partake in other constitutionally protected activities?
 
2 they keep it this way so they can have press conferences to change the common understanding of those laws
It doesn't "change the common understanding of those laws". It changes what they tell us how they would like for us to understand them.


how many licenses are required to partake in other constitutionally protected activities?
EXACTLY!!! Why nobody has jumped on this in a case/lawsuit yet is beyond me.
 
What if this is just his way of getting his criminal case put on hold. Some part of him must see that his argument in his criminal case is, lets just say it, crazy. And will likely mean some real prison time. If he can put it on hold long enough, maybe the situation will change, maybe the judge get replaced with one he hasn't pissed off, maybe he leaves the country, maybe he has a terminal disease and he's hoping he dies before going to prison. Could be a lot of reasons.
 
It doesn't "change the common understanding of those laws". It changes what they tell us how they would like for us to understand them.



EXACTLY!!! Why nobody has jumped on this in a case/lawsuit yet is beyond me.
If we had sane constitutional courts this would be an easy argument but we have these courts. They are not the same.
 
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?
First of all, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the constitution about your right to drive a car. 2A is pretty clear however. However, SCOTUS recently reaffirmed in NY vs Bruen that states have the rights to a licensing/permitting process. MA courts will probably look to Bruen and uphold MA’s process.
 
First of all, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the constitution about your right to drive a car. 2A is pretty clear however. However, SCOTUS recently reaffirmed in NY vs Bruen that states have the rights to a licensing/permitting process. MA courts will probably look to Bruen and uphold MA’s process.
But he's not claiming a 2a violation so they won't be looking at anything rights related. They will look at the MA laws he sites and then not agree with his interpretation.
 
But he's not claiming a 2a violation so they won't be looking at anything rights related. They will look at the MA laws he sites and then not agree with his interpretation.
Agree, but just pointing out that one (keeping and bearing arms) is a right, the other (operating a motor vehicle on public roads) is a privilege. Not a good idea to compare a right and violating that right via bureacratic processing requirements, and a privilege, which is something I can get behind with having a licensing/permitting process as a civil agreement to access a public service. Unfortunately SCOTUS affirmed states’ rights in having a permitting process for access to your right to keep and bear arms, which is clearly in violation of 2A. We’ve all just come to accept it (by comparing things like the above without the distinction of a right and privilege) but its a blatant violation of constitutional rights and we comply because its “sensible”.
 
First of all, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the constitution about your right to drive a car. 2A is pretty clear however. However, SCOTUS recently reaffirmed in NY vs Bruen that states have the rights to a licensing/permitting process. MA courts will probably look to Bruen and uphold MA’s process.
Not even close
Bruen covers the right to carry arms in public for self defense and did not answer the question of licensing directly only the question of unbridled discretion in licensing.
We don't know the answer to the question of licensing to simply possess a firearm as that not been asked directly but my thought is that it will get shot down unless it is for the purpose of enhancing the ability to purchase (bypass waiting times or background checks).
 
Aaand ill take "things That will never happen....." for 1000, Alex. As @pastera says, in this case, you reeeeealy don't want that to happen....
Exactly. Because legal definitions have always kept things so clear and easy to follow. Just ask the ATF. lmao
 

rule of lenity​

The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state. The rule of lenity stems from two constitutional objectives: first, the separation of powers, as it limits the scope of statutory language in penal statutes and does not allow the courts to establish the contours of a crime and its punishment. Second, the rule of lenity stems from the wish to “protect the legislature’s constitutional lawmaking prerogative, and to limit the courts’ encroachment on a legislative function”.

Ambiguity in law=Must rule for the defendant. We all know the courts have had the 2 step scrutiny working in their favor for years. Now that NYSRPA V. BRUEN has struck down that precedent, the courts must prove licensing requirements were consistent with the Constitution's text, history, and tradition in 1791.
I would lean heavy on Murdock V. Pensylvania 1943
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
granted by the Federal Constitution. ... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a
license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'" Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113-114 (1943).
And
"The very purpose of a Bill of
Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place
them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press,
freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections." W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319
U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
And
These are the "arms" secured by Article 17 that the "people have a right to keep and to
bear," and these rights have never been legislated, or even submitted to a vote: "Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would
abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
 

rule of lenity​

The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state. The rule of lenity stems from two constitutional objectives: first, the separation of powers, as it limits the scope of statutory language in penal statutes and does not allow the courts to establish the contours of a crime and its punishment. Second, the rule of lenity stems from the wish to “protect the legislature’s constitutional lawmaking prerogative, and to limit the courts’ encroachment on a legislative function”.

Ambiguity in law=Must rule for the defendant. We all know the courts have had the 2 step scrutiny working in their favor for years. Now that NYSRPA V. BRUEN has struck down that precedent, the courts must prove licensing requirements were consistent with the Constitution's text, history, and tradition in 1791.
I would lean heavy on Murdock V. Pensylvania 1943
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right
granted by the Federal Constitution. ... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a
license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'" Murdock v.
Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113-114 (1943).
And
"The very purpose of a Bill of
Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place
them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press,
freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
they depend on the outcome of no elections." W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319
U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
And
These are the "arms" secured by Article 17 that the "people have a right to keep and to
bear," and these rights have never been legislated, or even submitted to a vote: "Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would
abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)

Unfortunately, we have strayed very far from the court decisions that you cited!
 
That's one of the problems with MA gun laws: there are no definitions. I think if they ever rewrote MA gun laws, they should start with a table of definitions, so everything that follows is congruent and consistent.
You are incorrect. The very first section of the MA firearm law, MGL Chapter 140 Section 121 is all definitions. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Now there are things that they don’t define and should, but the fact is that they have defined a lot of terms.
 
Last edited:
His attorney (or advisor) probably told him to STFU on social media....
probably a bit too late for that to do any factual difference.
the whole thing was a most don quixote thing i have heard of in a looong time. it cannot end well.
but if it will, somehow, it will make quite a story.
 
Back
Top Bottom