MAJOR 2A decision this week

[BillB]

The Supreme Court is going to make a major 2A decision this week (probably Tuesday). It will more than likely reign in some of these Marxist Politicians and appointed/unelected officials who live to look for excuses to take away your rights.
We can only hope for the best, and continue to take our country back from these filthy Anti-American 'Progressive' creeps, and the rock they crawled under from. Expose them wherever you see them for the low-life's they are!

 

[vellnueve]

Um... can you elaborate on the case?

 

[Friday]

Would this be the Macdonald v Chicago case by any chance? Arguments are scheduled to be heard on Mar 2nd.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

They're not deciding anything on Tuesday, they're hearing a series of oral arguments on a case that is in it's origin a 2A case, but is, in fact, now a 14A case.

ETA: the McDonald Mega Thread can be found here.

 

[AppleSeeds]

I believe I read arguments will be heard this week, a decision sometime in June.

 

[BillB]

This is the Chicago/Oak Parks case. After the DC case, which only covered Federal Law, this similar case will effect all state laws.
For MA it will effect things like gun lock/cases etc. and self defense, but may cover other areas.

 

[AppleSeeds]

There are some threads going regarding this case, if you're interested:

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ald-Gun-Rights-Case-Round-One-Goes-to-the-NRA

 

[buketduder]

We won't know how much it will change State Laws until we see how narrow of a ruling they make..I doubt they will address carrying a concealed gun..prob just having one at home..I am sure numerous lawsuits will be filed after the ruling...

 

[Scrivener]

This is the Chicago/Oak Parks case. After the DC case, which only covered Federal Law, this similar case will effect [sic] all state laws.

In other words, it's the same case that we already have several threads about.

For MA it will effect [sic] things like gun lock/cases etc. and self defense, but may cover other areas.

It will have no such effect, whether on MA storage laws or the MA "castle law."

 

[BillB]

In other words, it's the same case that we already have several threads about.



It will have no such effect, whether on MA storage laws or the MA "castle law."

And how will MA ignore the Supreme Court if it rules you do not need to keep a lock on your firearms at home?

But that is the point of my thread, the filthy Marxist unelected/appointed officials that have NO respect for the Constitution, taking rights away from Americans, that elected officials can't even get away with!
So is some unelected activist judge going to say the Supreme Court is irrelevant?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Ultimately, any decision issued by the SC will change MA law one of three ways: 1) an enlighten legislature will change laws in order to be in-line with the court's decision; 2) Citizens litigate against one or more feature of MA law; or a criminal defendant cites the SC decision as a defense in their criminal trial.

#1 probably won't happen. H2259 would address some of the problems in MA, but it's unlikely to be enacted.
#2 To do this you need money, a good lawyer, and standing. That's hard to get for a storage issue. Easier for a license denial.
#3 Comm v Runyan is a storage case currently in front of the SJC. It's clear the SJC is waiting for the McDonald decision before ruling. This case might over-turn the MA storage law.

If you want to see what may be possible in MA, you need to track two CA cases that are also waiting on McDonald. Sykes addresses the same unfair licensing issues we face here, and Pena if successful will be a good basis to challenge the MA EOP and GA issues affecting the availability of handguns in common use. Establishing harm and standing is difficult in these cases though since you really need the state's cooperation in persecuting you.

 

[Scrivener]

And how will MA ignore the Supreme Court if it rules you do not need to keep a lock on your firearms at home?

Locks are only required when the owner is not in control of the firearm. As one can carry on one's person in one's home, the storage issue presented in Heller is irrelevant in MA. If you'd followed the discussions you'd know that.

But that is the point of my thread, the filthy Marxist unelected/appointed officials that have NO respect for the Constitution, taking rights away from Americans, that elected officials can't even get away with!
So is some unelected activist judge going to say the Supreme Court is irrelevant?

If that's your point, you missed the mark.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

#2 To do this you need money, a good lawyer, and standing. That's hard to get for a storage issue. Easier for a license denial.

A couple things that could change as a result of a positive McDonald firing:

1. Godfrey v. Wellesley that held that an individual who has an LTC revoked for invoking his 5th ammendment rights may be entitled to some remedy, that remedy is not restoration of his LTC.

2. Tha Wakefield policy that no individual with a court issued 209A in their past may ever be issued an LTC, even if the RO has expired and they were never even charged with violating it.

3. Denial of an LTC for charges for which no conviction resulted. Once something is acknowledged as a right under the constitution, it cannot be taken without due process - and "you were found not guilty but we've decided you're still guilty" is unlikely to meet that standard.

#1 and #2 above have already been litigated, and lost, in MA courts (#1 lost at the district an appellate levels). Both decisions were supported by the fundamental principle in MA case law that there is no right to own a firearm, and that removal of a license is not "punishment" as far as the law is concerned but an administrative action. Once handgun ownership becomes a right, that bedrock will erode rather quickly.

 

[dixidawg]

Would the folks in 1 and 2 then have the right to appeal if handgun ownership becomes a right?

 

[Pilgrim]

I predict that every Ma gun law, even if it's plain to everyone who is not a politician that it's going against the SCOTUS rulings, will have to be tested in MA court. NOTHING will change until each and every aspect is tested in court...and then possibly appealed.

They won't give up without a long hard expensive fight.

 

[rwl1955]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100228/D9E4VH083.html

 

[Scrivener]

I predict that every Ma gun law, even if it's plain to everyone who is not a politician that it's going against the SCOTUS rulings, will have to be tested in MA court. NOTHING will change until each and every aspect is tested in court...and then possibly appealed.

They won't give up without a long hard expensive fight.

Exactly.

Expect the same blatant obstructionism here that DC subjects its residents to as it seeks every opportunity to evade, or even ignore, compliance with the Heller decision.
They won't give up without a long hard expensive fight.[/QUOTE]

 

[BillB]

If that's your point, you missed the mark.

I don't think so....I want people to understand and point out the filthy Marxist low-life's hiding behind government in there "unelected" positions, doing things elected politicians don't dare to. And getting away with it through "unelected" Progressive activist judges who HATE the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.
Not to leave out the "unelected" Police Chiefs who live to play with peoples rights!

Not unlike the 'appointed' health official of a town making up there own smoking laws (from thin air), even though the State laws said people can smoke at private clubs.
Fanatics who 'get away with it' in the Communist Commonwealth. You need to be a real piece of garbage to enjoy doing these type things!
But that is what Massachusetts is all about....

 

[EddieCoyle]

Please continue the discussion here.