Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

[drgrant]

Update to Dr. Kang Lu’s case

Judge tosses gun-packing doctor's challenge to Massachusetts firearms laws

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit by a now former radiologist over the state's gun laws, saying the Supreme Court still gives states the rights to regulate guns and besides, he really needs to first finish his appeal in state court on his convictions for illegal possession of a firearm...

www.universalhub.com

This guys got more balls and is more of a patriot than half of NES. I’m shocked no one seems to give a shit about his case.

Probably because he's in outer space in that sovereign citizen sort of way, however, even if I don't agree with his legal logic I would prefer to see someone like him win vs lose.

 

[nstassel]

I just looked at the criminal case. He got convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammo and got 18 mos in the house of correction and probation from and after. BUT... he got it stayed pending appeal and remains out on bail.

 

[Spartan65]

I just looked at the criminal case. He got convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammo and got 18 mos in the house of correction and probation from and after. BUT... he got it stayed pending appeal and remains out on bail.

Thanks Neil.

Hopefully he has the resources to fight all the way to the highest court.

 

[Broc]

Interesting the Fed Judge used Bruen as part of the reason to shut him down.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Interesting the Fed Judge used Bruen incorrectly as part of the reason to shut him down.

FIFY

It didn't expressly support licensing. It said that licensing wasn't actually at question, so they punted and said it could be Constitutional. But we can't expect her to understand that distinction; it's not like it's her job or anything.

 

[42!]

FIFY

It didn't expressly support licensing. It said that licensing wasn't actually at question, so they punted and said it could be Constitutional. But we can't expect her to understand that distinction; it's not like it's her job or anything.

I think the meaning behind Bruen and licensing was that licensing was by itself was constitutional, but this doesn’t mean every possible aspect/restriction under a license would be. Those elements would have to be addressed separately from the existence of "a license".
Kang Lu was challenging the existence of a license, not the conditions under that license.
I personally don't like the license thing, it was a quick fix back when they couldn't do instant checks and they wanted to be able to verify that the person wasn't PP. With today's tech it is no longer needed for that.

Edited to fix autocorrect

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think the meaning behind Bruen and licensing was that licensing was by itself was constitutional, but this does mean every possible aspect/restriction under a license would be. Those elements would have to be addressed separately from the existence of "a license".

That's not what I took from it.

The question at hand was "Does New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?" Their analysis, therefore, started with the assumption that LTCs are legit, but there was no finding on that part either way. In fact, footnote 9 says, quite explicitly, that this could be revisited in the future if the States abuse their shall-issue licensing schemes (image pasted because I'm too lazy to fix the text formatting today):


She states "Lu's claim challenging licensing requirements is not viable under the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen which explicitly upheld such licensing schemes." Except it did no such thing.

Kang Lu was challenging the existence of a license, not the conditions under that license.

Agreed. And it's possible, using Bruen, for a litigant to find the toehold to climb that wall. Lu was never likely to be that litigant.

I personally don't like the license thing, it was a quick fix back when they couldn't do instant checks and they wanted to be able to verify that the person wasn't PP. With today's tech it is no longer needed for that.

You give too much credit. Recall, @nstassel shared the below result of his research, from the 1905 Commonwealth of MA District Police report. It's nothing to do with bg checks or pp status. It's always been about disarming the proles, especially those immigrants.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I applied for my free speech permit yesterday. I asked for no restrictions.
I also applied for my 5th amendment permit.

 

[42!]

That's not what I took from it.

The question at hand was "Does New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?" Their analysis, therefore, started with the assumption that LTCs are legit, but there was no finding on that part either way. In fact, footnote 9 says, quite explicitly, that this could be revisited in the future if the States abuse their shall-issue licensing schemes (image pasted because I'm too lazy to fix the text formatting today):
View attachment 868849

She states "Lu's claim challenging licensing requirements is not viable under the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen which explicitly upheld such licensing schemes." Except it did no such thing.


Agreed. And it's possible, using Bruen, for a litigant to find the toehold to climb that wall. Lu was never likely to be that litigant.


You give too much credit. Recall, @nstassel shared the below result of his research, from the 1905 Commonwealth of MA District Police report. It's nothing to do with bg checks or pp status. It's always been about disarming the proles, especially those immigrants.
View attachment 868869

We agree on the first part, autocorrect f’d me

I think the reasoning changed since 1909, when pp became a thing and discrimination could not be used