• 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.

One More Win - Hill v. New Bedford

Knuckle Dragger

Knuckle Dragger

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,299
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
I don't want to let this one get lost in the tweets and emails. Last month the Bristol Superior Court found in favor of Jonathan Hill in his license appeal against New Bedford. The decision is notable in that the judge applied heighten scrutiny and that the denial of his license was violation of his Second Amendment rights.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the FIRST time that a Massachusetts state court has upheld the Second Amendment.
In the context of the stipulated facts, the court finds that the record clearly fails to establish, even a rational basis for declining the subject permit, let alone facts sufficient to meet a heightened scrutiny standard.
Click to expand...

Decision

History
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
To the best of my knowledge, this is the FIRST time that a Massachusetts state court has upheld the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Last year the MA SJC ordered the reinstatement of a MA non-res LTC. The LTC was pulled because the person was OCing, legally, and someone called the cops and said "I see a scary gun...". It was revoked on a bullshit disturbing the peace charge.

The court ordered the state to reinstate the LTC and in it's statement the SJC said that, (paraphrasing) A gun owner carrying legally and in accordance with the provisions of their license is not responsible for the feelings of others. Basically ending the getting your LTC pulled for not breaking the law by OCing bullshit. Cops can nolonger charge you with disturbing the peace just because someone who doesn't like guns decided to bitch about it.

Not to say that some people won't still get charged. That would require all the cops to actually know the laws they are supposed to enforce. But now thanks to that decision by the SJC any first year law student should be able to get the charges dropped in no time.


Here is another I just found while looking for a link to the case I just mentioned... http://massguns.com/massachusetts-highest-court-rules-in-favor-of-gun-owner/

Jay E. Simkin appeared for a doctor’s appointment carrying two loaded handguns and 4 knives. He gave the doctor’s office a false name to protect his privacy. He did not prove his telephone number and paid the bill in cash. The Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau revoked his Class A non-resident Massachusetts License to Carry Firearms on the grounds that he was not a “suitable person” to hold such a license based on his reporting to a medical appointment with the 2 loaded firearms and 4 knives. The Firearms Records Bureau also notified the Nashua, New Hampshire Police Department as that is where Simkin lived. The FRB notified the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, because Simkin held a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

Simkin appealed the revocation of his LTC and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in his favor. In reversing the firearms license revocation, the SJC noted that the Firearms Records Bureau had not promulgated regulations regarding suitability to hold a LTC and that Simkin’s actions in this case did not render him an “unsuitable person” to hold a non-resident Class A License to Carry Firearms.

Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. filed an amicus brief in this case.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wrench75 said:
Last year the MA SJC ordered the reinstatement of a MA non-res LTC. The LTC was pulled because the person was OCing, legally, and someone called the cops and said "I see a scary gun...". It was revoked on a bullshit disturbing the peace charge.

The court ordered the state to reinstate the LTC and in it's statement the SJC said that, (paraphrasing) A gun owner carrying legally and in accordance with the provisions of their license is not responsible for the feelings of others. Basically ending the getting your LTC pulled for not breaking the law by OCing bullshit. Cops can nolonger charge you with disturbing the peace just because someone who doesn't like guns decided to bitch about it.

Not to say that some people won't still get charged. That would require all the cops to actually know the laws they are supposed to enforce. But now thanks to that decision by the SJC any first year law student should be able to get the charges dropped in no time.


Here is another I just found while looking for a link to the case I just mentioned... http://massguns.com/massachusetts-highest-court-rules-in-favor-of-gun-owner/
Click to expand...
That was the Simkin case and Comm2A filed an amicus brief with the SJC. It is quickly becoming an important part of the case law here. The court gave us a (surprisingly) good decision. However, they did not rule that Simkin's 2A rights had been violated and they certainly did not apply heightened scrutiny to a 2A claim. While the SJC has issued a few decisions favorable to gun owners, they deftly skirt the Second Amendment questions.
 
Last edited:
Knuckle Dragger said:
That was the Simkin case and Comm2A filed an amicus brief with the SJC. It is quickly becoming an important part of the case law here. The court gave us a (surprisingly) good decision. However, they did not rule that Simkin's 2A rights had been violated and they certainly did not apply heightened scrutiny to a 2A claim. While the SJC has issued a few decisions favorable to gun owners, they deftly skirt the Second Amendment questions.
Click to expand...

Yep I just found the quote I was remembering in the official court docs on the SJC website..

Next, we suspect that the average Massachusetts resident may become "alarmed" on learning that someone other than a law enforcement officer is carrying concealed weapons in his or her presence. However, Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that.
Click to expand...

I hear ya about how it is not a direct 2A ruling but definitely in our favor. Hell up there any step in the right direction is huge. Even the little ones.

Here is a link for anyone who may want to read the specifics of the case. http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/...TRUE&ss=CNT&sskey=CLID_SSSA44207542353&vr=1.0

I found this part pretty interesting...

Finally, there is the matter of Simkin's concealment of his true identity at the medical office. The record shows that Simkin used a pseudonym and provided indirect contact information for the purpose of protecting his medical privacy. There is no suggestion that Simkin was attempting to commit a crime or perpetrate a fraud. Once he learned that the authorities (specifically, Detective McKinnon) wished to speak to him regarding his license, he was compliant and forthright. This is therefore not a case where an applicant or license holder has attempted to mislead the licensing authority. Contrast Hightower v. Boston, supra at 68-69. A different case might have been presented if the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security or its designee had promulgated regulations pertaining to the use of a pseudonym while carrying concealed firearms pursuant to a license issued in a license holder's legal name, but as already mentioned, no such regulations exist. Accordingly, we have no occasion to consider whether any such regulations could permissibly prohibit using a pseudonym in the manner that Simkin did here.
Click to expand...
 
Good decision, HOWEVER. This is just a Superior Court decision and can NOT be used as precedent.

Only published APPEALS court decisions are precedent.

Is New Bedford going to appeal? Because let me tell you, the appeals court and the SJC are capable of full-retard actions.
 
Thanks to everyone who has made this, and other, cases possible. Comm2A has additional cases in the pipeline, all made possible by your support.
 
There was a thread recently about what to do with your tax return...
I think I found, in this thread, what to do with a portion of mine.

I understand the "death by a thousand cuts" process is arduous... Keep fighting the good fight.
 
mke0039 said:
Good decision, HOWEVER. This is just a Superior Court decision and can NOT be used as precedent.

Only published APPEALS court decisions are precedent.

Is New Bedford going to appeal? Because let me tell you, the appeals court and the SJC are capable of full-retard actions.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no.

Binding precedent refers to a decision of a higher court within a given court's "chain of command," with which the lower court cannot disagree and which it must follow.

Persuasive precedent refers to a decision that, while not binding, is carefully and cogently constructed so as to persuade a different court that its rationale should be adopted.

Hill seems to be to be ably usable as persuasive precedent.
 
RKG said:
Hill seems to be to be ably usable as persuasive precedent.
Click to expand...

Unless the Appeals, SJC take the case and rule otherwise. The court basically gutted the "broad discretion" powers of the Chief LEO here, it will be interesting to see what happens if/when it is appealed.
 
Persuasive precedent refers to a decision that, while not binding, is carefully and cogently constructed so as to persuade a different court that its rationale should be adopted.

Hill seems to be to be ably usable as persuasive precedent.
Click to expand...
Yup.

As long as courts continue to express a "prevailing opinion" on an issue, other courts will tend to go with the flow even if those other courts do not set binding precedent. Prior to Heller, the universal school of thought in MA courts was the "no individual right to a firearm"; "no right to due process", "no re-evaluation of the reason at appeal, just a determination if the chief thought he had a reason"; etc. Cases like Hill are important because they break the assumption that the courts will always find in favor of the government in a licensing issue, and therefore, will increase the chance that other courts will decide cases on the actual merits.
 
I believe the window for filing an appeal has passed without New Bedford taking any action. I don't think they (or anyone else in the state) wanted to run the risk of having a decision like this issued by a higher court or set up another reversal that would have driven our appeal to an even higher level. New Bedford essentially contained the loss forcing us to continue this fight another day.
 
You are probably right. I remember a Superior court ordering the sale of a guys house to pay the fines from his condo for feeding the birds.....OFF condo property.

I don't have much respect for the Superior court, I doubt the upper court does either.
 
Mr Weebles said:
Can the Chief still be a dick and B-ram this guy or give him a restricted LTC-A?
Click to expand...

Based on the ruling, a restricted LTC/A appears to be out of the question. The chief might try to issue an LTC/B since Hill can open carry with that. But that's unlikely to happen as Hill applied for the LTC/A, that was denied and that's what the court ordered be issued.
 
I never thought I'd read language like this out of a MA state court. Too bad New Bedford didn't push it up the chain.

Comm2A needs everyone's support to keep bringing cases like this.
 
Money is coming your way. Thank you for all that you do in support of the rights of the people of Massachusetts.

tumblr_lo2zqb6h5P1qzsyre.gif
 
LittleCalm said:
I am a monthly comm2A donor and encourage others to do so.
Click to expand...


this.

It's easy to set up and doesn't take much money. Do it this way and you won't even miss it each month.

Comm2a can plan better when they know money is coming in regularly.

I've been automatically donating for about a year now. I upped my original amount once already and hope to be able to up it again soon.

It's a really painless way to help do a lot of good.
 
I just read the decision. It seems interesting to me that not only did the judge find the chief's decision arbitrary and capricious, but he also found that it failed the test for heightened scrutiny. Could the judge have found that the chief's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and remanded the decision, without having considered the 2nd Amendment issue?

I'm wondering if the judge could have finessed the 2nd Amendment issue but instead chose to consider it.
 
I think that he could have. In fact, on my first reading I focused on the A&C aspect and the finding that the chief's denial was due to misreading the record. I suppose it could have stopped there, but it didn't.
 

Similar threads

Buying more than one firearm
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
New Orleans Police Chief Pushes More Gun-Free Zones — Where Tourists Can’t Be Armed for Self-Defense
Replies
21
Views
314
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
231
dfritz
D
Getting a replacement LTC card in New Bedford MA
Replies
7
Views
369
Alex9661
Alex9661
i'm really liking those new snake guns more and more that KAG is showing.
Replies
17
Views
781
walter62
walter62
Back
Top Bottom