Yes, but fighting gun legislation in MA is always going to be an uphill fight. Which was my point, really: bang for the buck the 2A orgs choose to spend here needs to be thought about carefully. Otherwise they really are just pissing their money away.
-
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.
Mass AWB’s days are numbered
- Thread starter Mass Firearms
- Start date
Yes, but fighting gun legislation in MA is always going to be an uphill fight. Which was my point, really: bang for the buck the 2A orgs choose to spend here needs to be thought about carefully. Otherwise they really are just pissing their money away.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,577
- Tell that to legal permanent residents (green card holders, and I'm not talking about MG licenses) or persons with marijuana convictions pre-dating decriminialization who were prohibited by MGL from obtaining an LTC.
- We don't publish all details of individuals we have helped, but there have been some
- Prior to Bruen, Comm2A was instrumental in flipping some towns to issuing unrestricted.
- We have filed and lost several cases as well. Two that I believe were decided using the "cuz guns" doctrine come to mind:
- Draper, Boudrie et. al. v. Healy - the "Glock case" summary judgment against us.
- A bonded warehouse case in which the court held that a bonded warehouse fee was not similar to a towing fee, and not subject to regulation or limit
- Comm2a has not filed cases that are the equivalent of tilting at windmills - like "Declare the 2A to be a carry permit and rescind the MA AWB in its entirety". If that had a chance of working, we would have done it.
- Nobody on the board is paid anything by Comm2a funds, though we have not figured out how to get attorneys to work for free so we do pay them. Allegations of "pocket lining" in relation to Comm2A are baseless.
- I agree it is unfortunate that your query to Comm2a fell through the cracks, but the org's charter is to try to improve the system through strategic litigation - not act as a AAA to gun owners having issues with the system.
- Are you implying that something has been missed and there is a litigation strategy that would actually overturn the 10 round limit and mag ban in MA? Your allegation in that department is like calling a MD cancer specialist a "joke" because (s)he could not cure a metastasized grade 4 glioblastoma.
Last edited:
btnh6668
NES Member
They are doing what they can do. Do you donate to both? Are you doing anything to help them achieve their goals or just here to shit on the people who are trying to fight the bs? The fact MA isn't like cali or NJ at this point tells me they have been somewhat successful in trying to mitigate much of the nonsense. I listen to GOAL's podcast and they often explain the minutia that they have to deal with on the state level. I am pretty confident that the majority of people complaining on the internet are the ones who don't donate to the organizations trying to keep the 2a alive. With most things its the "someone should do something" but they never want to be the one who tries to do something. All we need is for every gun owner to donate $1 a year... and even that is apparently to hard to achieve since we are more concerned with shitting on our own rather than helping.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,577
Individual license delay cases are tough - the PD issues the license after the case has spent a few months working its way through the system, informs the court, and asks it to dismiss that case.
Sparky1911
NES Member
Bruen decision
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,577
Absent the Comm2A victories, do you believe MA would currently be issuing LTCs to permanent residents and persons with MJ convictions pre-dating decriminalization .... or would it have taken court action to enforce that?
I actually saw a Four Boxes Diner YouTube video a couple months ago about just this topic concerning the CCDL case in Connecticut that was dealing with CT LTC delays (CCDL v. Thody). Case ended up being mooted out because the stated issued the plaintiffs their LTCs. Mark Smith talked about the doctrine of mootness vs. exceptions to mootness. I doubt the strategy he outlined in the video would work in the anti-2A courts here in MA, but it was still pretty interesting to watch for any legal geeks out there.
View: https://youtu.be/e1lOndG4TGU
EJFudd
NES Member
Understatement of the thread. While I have no complaints about COMM2A and their fine work, I believe that the current GOAL needs almost as much revamping and re-dedication to the pro-2A effort as the NRA itself. I understand that's not a popular thing to say (and I apologize to the members whose feelings I just hurt), but it has to be said.
I've also said before that my money goes each month to the pro-2A group that has done the most or achieved the most success in the prior month. I still think that's the best way to spend my limited money. Reward hard work and success and don't throw money away on frugality and failure. Is that too harsh? Please tell me if you think it is.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,577
That is not for others to judge. Your money, your criteria.
A huge amount happened here. "May-issue" went away. Restrictions went away. All of that was stuff GOAL had been fighting for decades, and TPTB let it drift away without a whimper within days of Bruen. That's NOT a small thing.
The MA licensure landscape is NOTHING like it was before Bruen. How quickly we forget...
MA was already essentially shall issue as long as you weren’t a prohibited person or unsuitable, and suitability didn’t go away post-Bruen. Really the only big thing that changed in MA after Bruen was restrictions.
Tell that to anyone living in Brookline or another red town. They're now, at last, equal to the rest of the state. That matters.
And don't be dismissive about restrictions. They were a massive issue for many citizens. They encouraged abuse of power, ignored the intent of the LTC background checks, and denied RKBA to people who were fully qualified to exercise it, even under the state's own laws.
Destroying that was huge. Restrictions were the most tyrannical part of the whole regime, because they were unaccountable and could not be effectively challenged.
EMTDAD
NES Member
Right. But it was based on a different district/circuit. Last one out of our areas was what? Caetano?
I'm not dismissing anything but it's easy to get impatient.
Who are the orgs that had success and you are supporting. Genuinely curious since I try to suppor groups who are fighting the fights.
I‘m already life for most orgs, so I’ll gladly send current money to another org that’s worthwhile
I’m not being dismissive of restrictions, I’m just saying you’re making it seem like Bruen did a whole lot more for MA than just get rid of restrictions when that’s not the case (yet). It essentially just did 1 really big thing, not multiple big or small things.
I understand that, but here's the thing: Bruen lets the most impatient people break these unjust laws. Because they're MOST unlikely to be prosecuted post-Bruen. And if they are? Bravo. You're the new test case. You'll be victorious, and your efforts will have helped all of us.
I don't know about anyone else, but speaking hypothetically (hi, Maura!)? I've stopped worrying all that much about a whole host of restrictive MA laws. They just don't matter to me anymore. They're on the books, sure, but they won't be enforced. Not anymore.
If you count this as a success, FPC recently had the Granata v. Campbell case sent back down to the district court a few months back. CA1 vacated the district court opinion upholding MA’s handgun roster and remanded the case to be reheard in light of Bruen. That’s the outcome FPC was looking for, and they got it.
Who says anyone will be victorious? We’ve had multiple courts across the country openly defy SCOTUS, including within our very own circuit. The laws will definitely still be enforced, the state is even hosting special training for PDs to teach them how to better enforce the gun laws. Seems to me like the state is doubling down on giving SCOTUS the middle finger, and risking spending several thousands of dollars and years (possibly decades) to maybe get a win in the end at SCOTUS is the wrong move.
When the state actually enforces these laws on their own, absent any other kind of unlawful act? In other words, once they're anything but tacked-on charges in the aftermath of an actual felony? I'll sit up and take notice then.
EJFudd
NES Member
Like I said, I choose one organization each month based on perceived level of hard work and success over the preceeding month.
The most common organizations so far are: FPC, GOA, SAF and COMM2A... but I am open to any pro-2A organization that pops up positively in the news or social media.
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
Happy to reach out to Framingham to remind them that they have exactly 40 days to act on an application under the law.
Like I said, I choose one organization each month based on perceived level of hard work and success over the preceeding month.
The most common organizations so far are: FPC, GOA, SAF and COMM2A... but I am open to any pro-2A organization that pops up positively in the news or social media.
I'm already life with GOA, SAF, GOAL, NRA, and I have an automatic monthly donation to Comm2A.
Just sent FPC some money
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,577
I checked - there was timely follow-up to the case Sparky claims got no response.
As to the future, I see "due process" as a big attack surface. Prior to Heller/Bruen, an LTC denial was about an administratively issued license, and a denial was not considered punishment or deprivation of a right by the courts. This attitude survived post-Bruen when the courts cited the "minor penalty" discharge within 500ft of a dwelling was a per-se offense, not even considering lifetime PP status as part of the penalty. I know of no other right that a user can be stripped of without the protections of due process being afforded to the accused.
A proper federal case would raise at least some of the following questions:
As to the future, I see "due process" as a big attack surface. Prior to Heller/Bruen, an LTC denial was about an administratively issued license, and a denial was not considered punishment or deprivation of a right by the courts. This attitude survived post-Bruen when the courts cited the "minor penalty" discharge within 500ft of a dwelling was a per-se offense, not even considering lifetime PP status as part of the penalty. I know of no other right that a user can be stripped of without the protections of due process being afforded to the accused.
A proper federal case would raise at least some of the following questions:
- May a finding of not guilty or dropped charges be used as the basis for stripping a person of a constitutional right?
- Can heresay evidence be used for that purpose?
- Can an individual be denied their 2A rights because they believe they were abducted by aliens? (yes, this has happened)
- Does the individual have a right to confront their accuser?
- Are police reports accepted as fact with the individual having no right to elicit testimony from the author?
- Can rumor or reputation, not substantiated by sworn testimony be used for such a purpose?
- Does the individual have a right to know who provided adverse information to the licensing officer, and confront that accuser in court?
- Does the fact that a case involves deprivation of a constitutional right entitle the subject to a jury trial?
- Does the prospect of losing a constitutional right entitle one to discovery?
- Is the standard "reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence"?
- Etc, etc.
Last edited:
Game on, sounds like a plan.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,577
Newspaper articles about PDs ignoring the 40 day limit are not likely to win any converts to our side. The general public reaction will be "better they take their time than make and issue a license to someone who should not have a gun beyond the 'should not have a gun' that applies to all persons not agents of the state".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,910
- Likes
- 2,938
Unfortunately we live in a state run by hard core leftist. Most of the judges are bought and paid for. We make up about 30ish % of the state when it comes to voting. Our guy or girl loses every time. The moderates are for the most part gone. We complain about the former Seal who is nothing but a liberal loon like the rest of them. Fact is if he ran like "one of us" he would lose. That's just how Mass is. I don't like it but here we are. Most of the Orgs that we need are going to spend their money on swing states where there is some chance of winning. In one of "our" courts we lose. The only reason the roster is probably going to get thrown out is it give California a fighting chance to win their case. (they probably won't but I think I made my point) The legislator looks at us as surfs and walking wallets. I'm not saying I like it or agree with it but its just how it is. I think we have some wins coming up but the State will fight us every step of the way and spend as much of our money as they deem necessary until the bitter end.
