Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

[VetteGirlMA]

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?

I think you have a compelling case and I would hate to see you become the test case for appeals. I don't like the idea of putting people in prison with no criminal records, acting non violently, exercising their rights fairly or as fairly as they believe it to be and then jamming people up with legal technicalities. The people doing the prosecuting don't care the lives that they ruin and the police don't care that they ruined lives and that to me is a fundamental problem with our justice system. A lack of accountability. They can pursue someone for years spending what amounts to limitless cash in order to destroy a single persons life and then afterwards they walk away scot free saying 'wut, I stand by what I did' when in a just world they would have been skinned alive.

 

[FalArAk]

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

 

[bigbravehog]

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’" Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority at the time. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

 

[GaryO]

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’" Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority at the time. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

Does this mean that the "List " can be tossed in the toilet?

 

[cams]

Does this mean that the "List " can be tossed in the toilet?

Maybe, if you actually paid attention to the list to begin with.

 

[MagGus1820]

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

Looks like this might be the right time for Dr. Lu to make his case.

 

[92G]

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?

^^QFMFT

 

[MagGus1820]

Poor Dr. Lu, he comes here for some help & support and what does he find? A bunch of white guys too frozen in fear over the system to ever dare challenge it. What happened to this country? I'm starting to think our history is all made up.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

Reading these post on the adventures of Dr. Kang Lu reminds me of reading Don Quixote.

 

[Rat187]

Reading these post on the adventures of Dr. Kang Lu reminds me of reading Don Quixote.

I got the same imagery.

 

[Dennis in MA]

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?

Explain how you go from 131 - LTC Firearms (which has no discussion of jobs or anything else - just citizenry and firearms) stating:

Section 131. The issuance and possession of a license to carry firearms shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(a) A license shall entitle a holder thereof of a license to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority considers proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it considers proper. A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to a violation of this paragraph.

No mention of duty or job or police or sheriff or state police or anything. Holder. Not Eric, ANY HOLDER (except Eric)! (Are you really hanging your hat on the fact that 131 doesn't mention "personal use" but instead just leaves all uses equal????)

Then jump immediately to Sec 147 - State and Other Police. (8A as you quoted I posted here in it's entirety.)

A sheriff, any of his deputies, and any officer of any institution under the supervision of a sheriff if so authorized by him, the commissioner of correction, and the deputy commissioners and any other officer of the department of correction or of any institution under its supervision if so authorized by said commissioner, the chairman of the parole board and any other officer of the parole board if so authorized by said chairman, and the penal institutions commissioner of the city of Boston, his deputy, and any officer of any institution under the supervision of said penal institutions commissioner if so authorized by him, may carry revolvers, clubs, handcuffs and twisters and such other weapons as are necessary in the performance of their duties.

You keep talking about this yet you fail to explain how 131 jumps to 147. I don't wanna be a dick about this, but if I'm the Maura, you're the Alex Jones of gun rights. I'm not falling for the bullshit Leftist argument of "if you aren't for me, you're against me" crap. That's how moderate Dems support Drag Queen Story Time and all of this woke-ism. I can support the causes I support and still disagree here.

Your case has no merit. I'm sorry to tell you that. I hope it quietly just goes away without any damage to the rest of us.

I DO think it's BS to have to have a license to carry a gun. So we are in agreement there. And I think we are headed in that direction in this country. My hope is that in 2-3 years, your situation will be set-aside due to changes at the SC level.

But your arguments aren't logical. Just pointing to it again isn't explaining it. You can't take 4 words from this section and 9 from another and show that you're in the right.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Poor Dr. Lu, he comes here for some help & support and what does he find? A bunch of white guys too frozen in fear over the system to ever dare challenge it. What happened to this country? I'm starting to think our history is all made up.

C'mon, Mag. Someone hurt your feelings or something?

It's one thing to fight. It's another to just throw shit on a wall and tell everyone it works. And then, by what it seems you're saying, "FORCE" everyone else to just agree.

No one is arguing his situation. They are arguing his methods. I guess if we don't support someone, no matter how strange, 100%, we aren't worthy to be in "the club."

I'm a club of one. I support when support is called for. I call BS when it's BS. It's called integrity. The rest is just Jr High popularity bull.

 

[eboos]

Explain how you go from 131 - LTC Firearms (which has no discussion of jobs or anything else - just citizenry and firearms) stating:

No mention of duty or job or police or sheriff or state police or anything. Holder. Not Eric, ANY HOLDER (except Eric)! (Are you really hanging your hat on the fact that 131 doesn't mention "personal use" but instead just leaves all uses equal????)

Then jump immediately to Sec 147 - State and Other Police. (8A as you quoted I posted here in it's entirety.)



You keep talking about this yet you fail to explain how 131 jumps to 147. I don't wanna be a dick about this, but if I'm the Maura, you're the Alex Jones of gun rights. I'm not falling for the bullshit Leftist argument of "if you aren't for me, you're against me" crap. That's how moderate Dems support Drag Queen Story Time and all of this woke-ism. I can support the causes I support and still disagree here.

Your case has no merit. I'm sorry to tell you that. I hope it quietly just goes away without any damage to the rest of us.

I DO think it's BS to have to have a license to carry a gun. So we are in agreement there. And I think we are headed in that direction in this country. My hope is that in 2-3 years, your situation will be set-aside due to changes at the SC level.

But your arguments aren't logical. Just pointing to it again isn't explaining it. You can't take 4 words from this section and 9 from another and show that you're in the right.

Thank you. I didn't want to touch this.

 

[drgrant]

No one is arguing his situation. They are arguing his methods. I guess if we don't support someone, no matter how strange, 100%, we aren't worthy to be in "the club."

I'm a club of one. I support when support is called for. I call BS when it's BS. It's called integrity. The rest is just Jr High popularity bull.

Lol @ any of you guys in this thread that think you're going to get him to discard his weird byzantine empire flaming dumpster fire on tuesday legal logic. That's not happening. You might as well be going straight into "my sky wizard is the real one, yours clearly IS NOT" thats how they're going to see it. Think sovcitizen and tax denier arguments, same thing. When was the last time someone had ever successfully (meaning they actually admitted it) convinced one of those people they were actually wrong?

That said I still want to see him win, even if its on some kind of technicality or f***up by the state, or some judge that maybe smoked too much pot that day or something. Nobody deserves to get screwed for target shooting with a gun somewhere otherwise safely.

 

[MagGus1820]

C'mon, Mag. Someone hurt your feelings or something?

It's one thing to fight. It's another to just throw shit on a wall and tell everyone it works. And then, by what it seems you're saying, "FORCE" everyone else to just agree.

No one is arguing his situation. They are arguing his methods. I guess if we don't support someone, no matter how strange, 100%, we aren't worthy to be in "the club."

I'm a club of one. I support when support is called for. I call BS when it's BS. It's called integrity. The rest is just Jr High popularity bull.

Here, here! Long live the status quo!

 

[VetteGirlMA]

C'mon, Mag. Someone hurt your feelings or something?

It's one thing to fight. It's another to just throw shit on a wall and tell everyone it works. And then, by what it seems you're saying, "FORCE" everyone else to just agree.

No one is arguing his situation. They are arguing his methods. I guess if we don't support someone, no matter how strange, 100%, we aren't worthy to be in "the club."

I'm a club of one. I support when support is called for. I call BS when it's BS. It's called integrity. The rest is just Jr High popularity bull.

Yeah but how many people would have said the same about the Caetano case when the MA supremes made their elaborate decision saying that stun guns are prohibited because Davey Crockett didn't carry one? Caetano had a public defender carry the case all the way to SCOTUS and produced some law that should be used in cases today.

Personally I'm getting sick and tired of gun rights orgs in this state who beg for money and then sit on their collective a**es and deliver nothing. They claim to fight for gun rights and then they're trying to convince us to collectively wait it out for 20 or 30 years for that perfect case just for it end up failing, meanwhile people go to jail and shoulders shrug with indifference.

I commend his willingness to fight for his freedom. If I ever found myself in his shoes and I felt I was in the right, I wouldn't be sitting at a table with a lawyer saying to me"Well here's your plea deal for 5 years for farting in the presence of a government official while armed with an environmental hate crime modification for being extra stinky or go trial with the possibility for life imprisonment for felony flatulence and abnormally high carbon emissions".

 

[eboos]

Yeah but how many people would have said the same about the Caetano case when the MA supremes made their elaborate decision saying that stun guns are prohibited because Davey Crockett didn't carry one? Caetano had a public defender carry the case all the way to SCOTUS and produced some law that should be used in cases today.

Personally I'm getting sick and tired of gun rights orgs in this state who beg for money and then sit on their collective a**es and deliver nothing. They claim to fight for gun rights and then they're trying to convince us to collectively wait it out for 20 or 30 years for that perfect case just for it end up failing, meanwhile people go to jail and shoulders shrug with indifference.

I commend his willingness to fight for his freedom. If I ever found myself in his shoes and I felt I was in the right, I wouldn't be sitting at a table with a lawyer saying to me"Well here's your plea deal for 5 years for farting in the presence of a government official while armed with an environmental hate crime modification for being extra stinky or go trial with the possibility for life imprisonment for felony flatulence and abnormally high carbon emissions".

The issue here is the reasoning cited does not support the Dr's case. 269 s. 10(h)(1) prohibits possession of a firearm without a license as specified in c. 140 s. 129C. Chapter 269 s. 10(a) describes a separate crime of "carrying a firearm without a license" which is exempted if you are at your residence or place of business. That exemption does not protect you from prosecution under s. 10(h)(1). Nowhere in the applicable statutes does it discuss 131 s. 147. It is simply a faulty argument.

 

[pastera]

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?

Repost without all of the edits
Heller and McDonald are on your side but your argument is a losing position.

If you can delay proceedings until Morin plays out it may help you if it is decided in the manner I believe it will - unfortunately it will likely be three or more years for that case to come to fruition.

 

[LuvDog]

I can't believe I missed all the other threads.

This is one of those things where I hope he does well. It's really pushing on some technicalities and some stretch between the landings, but that's the same tactic the opposition uses.

Slight of hand - look over there, while I manipulate things over here.

 

[pastera]

The issue here is the reasoning cited does not support the Dr's case. 269 s. 10(h)(1) prohibits possession of a firearm without a license as specified in c. 140 s. 129C. Chapter 269 s. 10(a) describes a separate crime of "carrying a firearm without a license" which is exempted if you are at your residence or place of business. That exemption does not protect you from prosecution under s. 10(h)(1). Nowhere in the applicable statutes does it discuss 131 s. 147. It is simply a faulty argument.

The issue is that 129c is exemption (g) may provide relief if I my recollection of events is correct (he was shooting on land he owned)
Also 129c is very likely unconstitutional on its face given it eclipses the ability to possess a firearm in the home.

 

[pastera]

Does this mean that the "List " can be tossed in the toilet?

Eventually? Yes
Either directly or by removal of the home state rule for purchases

 

[eboos]

The issue is that 129c is exemption (g) may provide relief if I my recollection of events is correct (he was shooting on land he owned)
Also 129c is very likely unconstitutional on its face given it eclipses the ability to possess a firearm in the home.

(g) would provide relief if his property qualified as a "shooting range", and he was merely a customer firing a gun provided.

 

[pastera]

(g) would provide relief if his property qualified as a "shooting range", and he was merely a customer firing a gun provided.

Nothing in (g) provides for the necessity of a commercial relationship

Can you provide a definition in Mass law of a firing or shooting range?

 

[eboos]

Nothing in (g) provides for the necessity of a commercial relationship

Can you provide a definition in Mass law of a firing or shooting range?

The best I can do is refer to a "shooting gallery" which must be licensed per c. 140 s. 56A. Beyond that, it appears that there is no statutory definition of a "shooting range", only a private property or indoor range exemption from the prohibition of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or building.

Edit: also: (g) only applies to rifles and shotguns.

 

[pastera]

The best I can do is refer to a "shooting gallery" which must be licensed per c. 140 s. 56A. Beyond that, it appears that there is no statutory definition of a "shooting range", only a private property or indoor range exemption from the prohibition of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or building.

Edit: also: (g) only applies to rifles and shotguns.

Concur
I can personally attest to personal test/target ranges while discouraged are recognized by police in certain towns.

I'm on my phone so don't have easy access to research fully
I believe there is president on the necessity of practice as part of "well regulated" therefore a state or locality cannot outlaw target ranges from Chicago.
The mooting of the last NY case at SCOTUS dealing with transportation to ranges and second homes is another data point showing the 2nd also protects the right to train and practice with arms

All of these points are likely valid points for the good Doc argue but licensing being a commercial limiter is a guaranteed losing path.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The issue here is the reasoning cited does not support the Dr's case. 269 s. 10(h)(1) prohibits possession of a firearm without a license as specified in c. 140 s. 129C. Chapter 269 s. 10(a) describes a separate crime of "carrying a firearm without a license" which is exempted if you are at your residence or place of business. That exemption does not protect you from prosecution under s. 10(h)(1). Nowhere in the applicable statutes does it discuss 131 s. 147. It is simply a faulty argument.

Look if I were fighting for my freedom from a non violent potential felony that would ruin my career, professional life, etc nothing would be off the table. Innocent is innocent and one believes that they are innocent then they should have that right. None of what you said is going to make a difference in a fury room, what will matter is what instructions the judge will give the jury. This took almost trivial google-ing to find:

"Punishments for the Illegal Gun Possession
Illegally carrying any gun without the proper license is a crime. However, the severity of the punishment that comes along with the offense depends on the specific violation. Generally, gun crimes that stem from carrying an unlicensed gun in public are much more serious. For example, possession of an unlicensed gun in your home or business carries a punishment of up to two years in a house of correction. However, illegally carrying a handgun in public (including in a vehicle) can result in a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months in a house of correction, even for a first offense."

If one owns land and is on the land privately, then they are obviously not carrying in public. Who knows how the guns got there right? Say I went to his private land with my rifles and pistol and dropped them on a picnic table. I said have at it and let them shoot. Then I disappear to go to the bathroom. That's an every day type of scenario. Even carrying a firearm in your home without a license is a simple misdemeanor in Massachusetts. Does that extend to one's property? If I owned 1,000 acres of land and I wanted to shoot privately then who's to say I can't? There doesn't appear to be anything in the law that says one must have an LTC to shoot on private property. In fact, how can a person train with firearms, especially a person who doesn't have an LTC? I've taken people shooting who have an interest in getting an LTC, are we saying that's illegal now? The law can't work both ways otherwise the law is useless, but I already think it's useless.

 

[eboos]

If one owns land and is on the land privately, then they are obviously not carrying in public. Who knows how the guns got there right? Say I went to his private land with my rifles and pistol and dropped them on a picnic table. I said have at it and let them shoot. Then I disappear to go to the bathroom. That's an every day type of scenario. Even carrying a firearm in your home without a license is a simple misdemeanor in Massachusetts. Does that extend to one's property? If I owned 1,000 acres of land and I wanted to shoot privately then who's to say I can't? There doesn't appear to be anything in the law that says one must have an LTC to shoot on private property. In fact, how can a person train with firearms, especially a person who doesn't have an LTC? I've taken people shooting who have an interest in getting an LTC, are we saying that's illegal now? The law can't work both ways otherwise the law is useless, but I already think it's useless.

"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.

 

[MAJoe]

In fact, how can a person train with firearms, especially a person who doesn't have an LTC? I've taken people shooting who have an interest in getting an LTC, are we saying that's illegal now? The law can't work both ways otherwise the law is useless, but I already think it's useless.

MGL 129c(m)

(m) The temporary holding, handling or firing of a firearm for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a license to carry firearms, or the temporary holding, handling or firing of a rifle or shotgun for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a firearm identification card, or where such holding, handling or firing is for a lawful purpose;

 

[Coyote33]

Can you provide a definition in Mass law of a firing or shooting range?

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.

 

[pastera]

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.

No we don't want that
You can have a home range as long as you live in a rural area without discharge laws and you put up a reasonably safe backstop at a distance that doesn't immediately say FU to neighbors.
If they define a range then even the best condition established ranges will fail and need millions in upgrades.