- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
The ham has varied from green to red to green to red over time.
-
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.
Message from Comm2A to people applying/renewing post 1/1/15
- Thread starter terraformer
- Start date
The ham has varied from green to red to green to red over time.
Support2ARTKBA
Banned
I'm going to add a few points to this at the risk of being yelled at (and at the risk of being told I don't understand the legal system, which I admit I'm not familiar with all the intricacies):
1) I saw someone mention that this is a state issue. It's a federal issue. SCOTUS via McDonald vs City of Chicago held that the Second Amendment applied to the sates; which means that every state's 2nd Amendment reads the same as the one in the U.S. Constitution. This also means that any/all infringements including restrictions on the exercise of the right are unconstitutional.
2) A federal judge ruled that 'may issue' in MD was unconstitutional. Has that been challenged here as well, and if not, why not? It sounds like Boston would be a ripe opportunity to challenge 'may issue'.
3) When you bring your application to PD, they enter the application, and they do the prints to send to the state for processing. I'm looking at the back of my LTC right now, and I don't see any magnetic stripes on them. I've heard that the background check takes less than five minutes, ID cards like these can be printed in the same amount of time. Why if PD is entering them, why can't it be generated there and you walk out with it on the day that you apply?
3a) Forego the paper application and use the citizen's state ID to take the information. Much of the identifying information they enter can be found on your driver's license or state ID; they don't need to know your height/weight or what you do for a living. I think they can see whether you have an LTC or not, and if this is a renewal.
As far as the questions go: They can tell by your birthdate whether you are 21+, I'm sure their system can see if you have any aliases, and the background checks will fill in the rest. I'm sure they could find out where else you've lived through the background check. It shouldn't be any of their business as to whether you've held CCW permits in other states. PDs also shouldn't need two references - one's license should not be dependent upon who can speak highly for them, and nobody will give a bad reference.
I'm sure there's things I'm missing - as such, I'm always open to learning something new!
1) I saw someone mention that this is a state issue. It's a federal issue. SCOTUS via McDonald vs City of Chicago held that the Second Amendment applied to the sates; which means that every state's 2nd Amendment reads the same as the one in the U.S. Constitution. This also means that any/all infringements including restrictions on the exercise of the right are unconstitutional.
2) A federal judge ruled that 'may issue' in MD was unconstitutional. Has that been challenged here as well, and if not, why not? It sounds like Boston would be a ripe opportunity to challenge 'may issue'.
3) When you bring your application to PD, they enter the application, and they do the prints to send to the state for processing. I'm looking at the back of my LTC right now, and I don't see any magnetic stripes on them. I've heard that the background check takes less than five minutes, ID cards like these can be printed in the same amount of time. Why if PD is entering them, why can't it be generated there and you walk out with it on the day that you apply?
3a) Forego the paper application and use the citizen's state ID to take the information. Much of the identifying information they enter can be found on your driver's license or state ID; they don't need to know your height/weight or what you do for a living. I think they can see whether you have an LTC or not, and if this is a renewal.
As far as the questions go: They can tell by your birthdate whether you are 21+, I'm sure their system can see if you have any aliases, and the background checks will fill in the rest. I'm sure they could find out where else you've lived through the background check. It shouldn't be any of their business as to whether you've held CCW permits in other states. PDs also shouldn't need two references - one's license should not be dependent upon who can speak highly for them, and nobody will give a bad reference.
I'm sure there's things I'm missing - as such, I'm always open to learning something new!
I think Boston, Brookline, and Lowell will be the biggest and most notable holdouts. Boston is probably trying to read the tea leaves and develop a plan for defending their current policy (which is probably more defensible than the blanket policies in the other two towns).
JackO
Instructor
What about Watertown? It seems Watertown is not better than Brookline.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
There is a case in federal court against two towns for licensing restrictions, and there is another that's been filed a few days ago that we will be announcing soon. It's not like no one is doing anything here...
I've heard very mixed reviews about Boston - some get restrictions lifted no problem, while others get told to pound sand. The letter I sent did not mention any changes to the law; instead I focused on training and such. If they don't lift my restrictions, I'll contact comm2a but hopefully it won't come to that.
^I won't YELL, see my comments below.
No, that's not what Heller or McDonald said at all. These cases at their core really only did two things: 1) they affirmed that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to possess 'arms'. Interestingly, all nine justices rejected the 'collective' interpretation that had been kicking around for years. 2) The decision overturned laws in DC and Chicago that imposed a total ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The decision implied a great deal more, (that's called dicta) but these cases only concerned bans on possession in the home, so the decisions were limited to that. Had the court gone beyond the actual controversy in the case, they would have rightly been labeled 'activist judges.'
Let's use an analog to put this in perspective. In 1954 the Supreme Court issued their decision in Brown v. Board of Education ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Yet, three years later President Eisenhower sent that national guard into Little Rock to forcibly desegregate that city's high school. Even into the '60s public schools in the south were routinely segregated.
The district court decision in the Maryland case you cite would NOT have any binding precedent here. Moreover, that decision was overturned by an appeals panel of the fourth circuit. A petition was filed with the US Supreme Court, but they did not grant cert. So that case is dead.
Good question, it shouldn't take any longer than booking someone. But there are other steps that can't be done immediately like inquiries to the dept of mental health. Somewhere around here there's a complete rundown on the process.
Comm2A has been at this legal thing for over four years. When we started we realized this would be hard work, but we thought the actual fights would be easy. One thing I think we've been very successful in is getting people to better understand the actual details of the many issues and nuances involved. I don't hesitate in saying that we've raised the level of legal and constitutional literacy among gun owners in Massachusetts.
Last edited:
Seriously, some of us have been involved in the legislative process and studying these laws for well over 30 years, so we might have a clue!!
If you really are open to learning something new, please take my advice given earlier . . . do some reading of the Stickies in the MA gun laws sub-forum. Read the stuff Comm2A has been involved with. It will give you a better understanding of how the system works, how the court thinks (if it does at all!
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
), what is truly possible and what is truly impossible. Comm2A is doing a methodical job of presenting very carefully crafted cases to win this battle an inch at a time. It's going to take a lot of time to get things more reasonable, that is just the way it is.The system of HOW the licensing process works has been well documented in one of those Stickies by me, after consultation with the Director of FRB at that time. Read it and try to understand the process.
Sadly he thinks we're all bumpkins who know nothing and do nothing!
See above comment on the process of licensing.
Yes and even those of us who knew a lot, have learned a lot more by following (and SUPPORTING) Comm2A!
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
Those of us who have been playing the game to win have an idea how the system actually works, not simplistic theories that get bounced out of court time and time again. I am not saying I agree with how the system is viewing "shall not be infringed", but if one is going to win in the system, one has to understand how it really works.
Federal courts are split on the issue of "should need (ie, "special person status") be a requirement for a concealed carry permit". Our side won on this issue in MD, and then lost on appeal. We have, so far, won in CA. We lost in NY and NJ.
Support2ARTKBA
Banned
Len, I appreciate your replies. I'm sure you can tell by my comments in my short time of membership, I'm both hard-headed and stubborn. I've had these same debates and discussions with people in an offline forum (I actually had one with someone yesterday on these very topics) Also, there are political lawmakers who have been involved in the lawmaking process for years, but somehow, the Constitutional eludes them as as well. (I'm sure it doesn't elude you, but I have a knack for stating the obvious)
Comm2A seems to be involved in petitioning the courts. Petitioning the courts and getting bills passed are two separate branches of government altogether.
'How the court thinks?' - There's this document that they take an oath to support and uphold. The judicial branch of state government is tasked with interpreting law consistent with the US and State Constitution, in addition to laws currently on the books.
Yes, I'm being very snarky, but it's reality. I'm sure you and others on this board have had MUCH experience in the court system, but what I described is how the court is supposed to think. It's not supposed to have bias or opinion, regardless of the personal feelings of the judge on the stand. Sure, laws have been put on the books that violate our gun rights, but that's why the people are supposed to communicate with their lawmakers. Sure they have constituents on both sides, but their oath to the state and federal constitutions come first.
I appreciate terraformer's comment and I appreciate the efforts put forth by Comm2A, but I haven't seen any legislative push by any organization to repeal 'may issue' like they did in MD (I'm sure you saw my link); while Comm2A is more involved in petitioning the court, I'm sure they have worked with a preponderance of clients who have had restrictions due to 'may issue'. The only fix there is legislative action. I've done my fair share of writing, but all of my lawmakers are anti-gun; I would write to the pro-gun lawmakers, but they're not my representatives. I have written to both of my Senators, and they're both anti-gun, and refuse to push anything pro-gun.
Comm2A seems to be involved in petitioning the courts. Petitioning the courts and getting bills passed are two separate branches of government altogether.
'How the court thinks?' - There's this document that they take an oath to support and uphold. The judicial branch of state government is tasked with interpreting law consistent with the US and State Constitution, in addition to laws currently on the books.
Yes, I'm being very snarky, but it's reality. I'm sure you and others on this board have had MUCH experience in the court system, but what I described is how the court is supposed to think. It's not supposed to have bias or opinion, regardless of the personal feelings of the judge on the stand. Sure, laws have been put on the books that violate our gun rights, but that's why the people are supposed to communicate with their lawmakers. Sure they have constituents on both sides, but their oath to the state and federal constitutions come first.
I appreciate terraformer's comment and I appreciate the efforts put forth by Comm2A, but I haven't seen any legislative push by any organization to repeal 'may issue' like they did in MD (I'm sure you saw my link); while Comm2A is more involved in petitioning the court, I'm sure they have worked with a preponderance of clients who have had restrictions due to 'may issue'. The only fix there is legislative action. I've done my fair share of writing, but all of my lawmakers are anti-gun; I would write to the pro-gun lawmakers, but they're not my representatives. I have written to both of my Senators, and they're both anti-gun, and refuse to push anything pro-gun.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Because when the 14th amendment freed the slaves, legislatures didn't do anything to frustrate efforts at equal rights...
Comm2A doesn't do legislation, so don't expect Comm2A to be doing anything like that in the future either. GOAL does that and it will take BOTH in order to continue to fix this problem.
Comm2A doesn't do legislation, so don't expect Comm2A to be doing anything like that in the future either. GOAL does that and it will take BOTH in order to continue to fix this problem.
xero2099
NES Member
I've had my ltc for two years and last year was the first year of it being unrestricted I've learned a lot from you guys keep up the good work!
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
How I think the courts are "supposed to think" and behave is often at great odds from how they actually think and behave. Having watched some of the sessions of the MA Supreme Judicial Court, I have to say that I don't think there is any justice to be found in MA courts.
Not all that long ago, the late attorney Darius Arbabi related to me how one of his clients was charged with carrying a gun with an illegal large capacity magazine. His client was carrying a semi-auto handgun with a 10-round magazine plus one in the chamber. The DA's argument was that 10+1 = 11 > 10, therefore illegal magazine. Really. In this case the judge didn't buy it, but it would not surprise me if another judge in MA would have bought the DA's argument.
Not all that long ago, the late attorney Darius Arbabi related to me how one of his clients was charged with carrying a gun with an illegal large capacity magazine. His client was carrying a semi-auto handgun with a 10-round magazine plus one in the chamber. The DA's argument was that 10+1 = 11 > 10, therefore illegal magazine. Really. In this case the judge didn't buy it, but it would not surprise me if another judge in MA would have bought the DA's argument.
See comments below on the two orgs.
Regardless of oaths taken, our so-called president, legislators and other politicians basically ignore those oaths like they ignore the Constitutions (US and state). NOT all oaths even require pledging to adhere to both. I've been an appointed town official since ~1976 and have taken many oaths since then. My first Town Clerk included the Constitutions but many years later they were conspicuously absent from the oaths we took. I had a long conversation with our current Town Clerk about it and she checked with the Secretary of State, reported back to me that both types of oaths are "approved" for MA! She did revert back to the older style as I believe she thinks like I do on the matter.
That said, during one of my Wife's LTC renewal "interrogations", she responded that she wanted her LTC because it was her Constitutional Right! The chief came back with "unfortunately state law supersedes the US Constitution!" If I wasn't sitting there (or didn't know him . . . I worked for him as a PT PO for a number of years), I might have had a hard time believing it. I seriously doubt that he's ever read the US Constitution. Former Carver PD Chief Diane Skoog even admitted in court that she had never read the Constitution! So, what makes us think that judges and DAs have actually read it or stayed awake in the Con Law courses??
GOAL did a great job last year making lemonade out of an arsenic concoction created by the Speaker of the House!
A few years ago GOAL tried to get traction on a huge omnibus bill that would have gutted C. 140 and created a nice new gun law . . . it went nowhere. I even spoke with Jim Wallace (Exec. Dir) about it at the time and he admitted that he knew that it would never pass. Sadly IMNSHO GOAL has spent too much time trying to eat the elephant in "quarters" and it is just too big a chunk for our anti-2A legislators to swallow, so they merely spit it up and it is DOA!
My legislators aren't exactly friends of the 2A either, so I'm personally taking a different route. I'm hopeful that this different route might result in some minor changes in law that will have a major impact for some situations.
^^^ This.
Every corporation has to have a charter which lays out what they do. If they violate that charter they can have their corporation invalidated by the Secretary of State. It also affects tax status. Comm2A is a charity (all donations are tax deductible) and charities are legally prohibited from lobbying. GOAL is NOT a charity and thus can lobby.
- Comm2A charter is education and litigation.
- GOAL charter is lobbying and legislative.
They certainly are not mutually exclusive efforts.
I think you missed a "not" in that sentence.
IIRC in the movie about Erin Brockovich (she later became an attorney), I recall one scene where they stated that the only justice was in the "halls"!! That's the way I see it too.
I sued 2 house painters that I hired, paid them ~1/3 upfront and they did no work. This was in the mid-1970s, they said "sue me" so I did. FIVE trips to court, an arrest capias issued, harassed (early morning phone calls, assaulted a couple of times, etc.) and I finally collected on my judgment. But I will never forget what the judge did. He refused to look at my photos of the "work not performed" and then said "I'm NOT going to rule according to MGL!!" I was intimidated and let it go, but learned a lot from that experience and it wasn't good.
As for the case you refer to, I am currently consulting on a similar case where the gun in question has a fixed magazine (low capacity and irrefutable documentation as to how those guns were built, etc.) and the defendant is being charged with illegal possession of a large-capacity weapon! To make this even better, a documented ballistics "expert" filed a report to support this charge!
"How the court thinks" is something that must be taken into account. Keep in mind that there are lawyers on both sides of any argument.
At the root of it is the phrase "shall not be infringed". Clearly, that's been twisted like a pretzel, and decisions that defy logic have come out that declare that requiring a license is not infringing.
Karen MacNutt wrote a great writeup on the history of Massachusetts gun laws in the Comm2A Amicus brief for Holden v Gemme, a case recently heard by the SJC. Reading through that will give you an idea of the battle we face.
I blatantly stole her work and posted it at http://www.attorneyfoley.com/history-of-massachusetts-firearms-statutes/
FrugalFannie
NES Member
Comm2A is watching out for us. Some of us understand that until a suit is filed you can't go announcing what's in the works. Some of the stuff I am aware of and some I have heard bits and pieces. I'm excited about your work even though I no longer live in MA as I still own a business there and a fight for freedom ANYWHERE is a fight for freedom EVERYWHERE.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a rather common aphorism that surely predated the movie. The full text of it is "In the halls of justice the only justice is in the halls." Apparently it was coined by comedian Lenny Bruce:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5241370.stm
But so sadly true!!
Thanks. I've updated my post. I'm sick, feel like ass, and wasn't even past my first cup of coffee when I wrote that.
I'm not sure Comm2A is watching out for you. Didn't you flee to New Hampshire?
Yes, GOAL offers a wide range of firearm, hunting, and outdoor education. Comm2A's education efforts are exclusivity legal in nature.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
GOAL's lobbyist is smart enough not to waste energy and credibility pushing for DOA changes to the law. Try taking away "chief's discretion" and it's GOAL against the entire police lobby.
For example, GOAL pushed, and got the Katrina law (against gun confiscation in states of emergency) to the point where it was a fait accompli. The police community discovered there were actual penalties for departments and officers that violated that pending law, and were able to deep six it at a point in the legislative process where bills are "done" and virtually never killed off.
Jim Wallace is not in the business of tilting at windmills. I remember asking Jim about the alien issue well before the filing of Fletcher v. Haas. He told me GOAL would not lobby that issue as there would be no favorable sentiment, and he needed to spend his time on activities that stood a chance of success. Unfortunately, his call was no doubt the correct one.
I just read a federal decision out of NYC that upheld the NYPD policy of only allowing transport of a handgun owned on a "premises permit" to ranges within NYC. Try using your legal theories on that judge.
Last edited:
There was a "GOAL Foundation" (non-profit) that managed training with Jon Green in charge of the training effort. When the 3 companies split up, Jon stayed with GOAL, but there is no non-profit associated with GOAL (AFAIK) at this point. Yes they do training (and Jon is one of the best) but it is overshadowed in their charter by lobbying and thus they can't benefit from tax relief unless they were to re-form another non-profit specifically for that purpose.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
It's a c4, not a c3. Note we have not been saying it isn't a npo, only that's it's not a charitable organization. There is a difference.
Sorry, my fault for using "non profit" as a term when I did mean "charitable org" (where donations are tax deductible).
