SJC Arguments tomorrow on a Non-Resident License Appeal

[terraformer]

Tomorrow there is the oral arguments in a non resident licensing case at the SJC. The SJC fast tracked this case. See if you can spot why they would want this case. We filed an amicus in this case and will continue to monitor the state courts for cases such as these.

http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/simkin_amicus_final.pdf

The docket is up at Mass Appellate Courts - Public Case Information

 

[Riverside]

Well I read the brief but I am clueless as to why this is "fast tracked." Is it the Medical setting, the report from a 3rd party who never saw the gun, the lifting of a license on "hearsay" evidence, the insinuation that the LTC has un-written restrictions, or the fact that the Superior court over-ruled the District court apparently not based on fact but feelings? The fact that this whole incident took place is appalling.
Best regards.

 

[WanMan99]

The fact that the SJC has fast tracked the case does not bode well... They are not exactly "friends" of the 2A in this state...

 

[terraformer]

Well I read the brief but I am clueless as to why this is "fast tracked." Is it the Medical setting, the report from a 3rd party who never saw the gun, the lifting of a license on "hearsay" evidence, the insinuation that the LTC has un-written restrictions, or the fact that the Superior court over-ruled the District court apparently not based on fact but feelings? The fact that this whole incident took place is appalling.
Best regards.

It's nothing specific. They bypassed other cases to take this one. Tomorrow we will see what they ask and may see why.

The fact that the SJC has fast tracked the case does not bode well... They are not exactly "friends" of the 2A in this state...

And this is why I am curious why they took this case.

 

[DrNVP]

The fact that the SJC has fast tracked the case does not bode well... They are not exactly "friends" of the 2A in this state...

I agree. Can't wait for what retard logic they use to justify the revocation

 

[MagGus1820]

They probably can't wait to say "The Constitution doesn't apply here".

 

[Mr Weebles]

I read the brief earlier today. It referred to magazines as "clips."

 

[Garys]

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Justices are soliciting amicus briefs. The issues presented are whether the provisions of G. L. c. 140, § 131, that allow the revocation of a permit to carry firearms if the holder is no longer a "suitable person," are applicable to non-residents (compare G. L. c. 140, § 131F); whether, in the circumstances, reasonable grounds existed for the Firearm Records Bureau to revoke a non-resident's license. Argument is scheduled for April 2013.

If I understand this, at issue is whether or not NR LTCs are "may issue" or "shall issue". That would certainly be a big deal.

 

[terraformer]

I read the brief earlier today. It referred to magazines as "clips."

Yeah, someone else pointed that out. Part of the problem is so did the state use that term. The spot where that was used is a refrain, though not a quote, of what the state said.

- - - Updated - - -

If I understand this, at issue is whether or not NR LTCs are "may issue" or "shall issue". That would certainly be a big deal.

Yes, and even a bigger deal is "the how" as to are they may issue.

 

[M1911]

This case is a clear example of the absurdity of discretionary licensing.

 

[Garys]

Yes, and even a bigger deal is "the how" as to are they may issue.

From the brief it appears that the law requires the Colonel of State Police to promulgate rules for the issuance of NR LTCs. That would include restrictions and standards for issuance. This, he has failed to do, as have some of this predecessors. Instead, employees of the FRB have arrogated the authority to write and enforce said rules. This they are not permitted to do, so it seems.

Another issue I can think of, but didn't see from the brief, is that there are two standards in the law. One for residents, one for non residents. Is this permissible? It would seem to violate the concept of equal protection. I'm probably reading too much into it.

 

[dogdoctor]

Yes, and even a bigger deal is "the how" as to are they may issue.

This. Discretionary licensing is bad. But allowance of hearsay to influence a discretionary (already flawed) system is just plain heinous.

 

[DrNVP]

any updates?

 

[terraformer]

No, I am still waiting for the oral arguments to be posted. By the time I clicked into the live feed, it was over already.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Video is up now:

mms://192.138.214.175/archives/SJC_11295.wmv

 

[swatgig]

I had the live feed going today. I didn't get a feel for how it would go. The antis were saying "ohhh - scary guns - do people carry all those guns in supermarkets?". On the other side, they asked if (a) paying cash, (b) using a pseudonym or (c) carrying concealed violated any laws or rules. When the answer was no, the next question was "So, zero plus zero plus zero equals one?"

 

[terraformer]

Oh my god... On gun, no gun, two gun, one gun... We are going to teach the SJC this??? Oh, this is going to be a monster CF...

 

[terraformer]

Paying in cash = Being a terrorist...

 

[Matt_SERE]

Paying in cash = Being a terrorist...

Wow!

My old computer could not open the other link.

SJC-11295, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Oral Arguments

 

[swatgig]

Oh my god... On gun, no gun, two gun, one gun... We are going to teach the SJC this??? Oh, this is going to be a monster CF...

When I first heard that I thought the same thing, but she used it to suck them into her argument that carrying more than one was important

- - - Updated - - -

Paying in cash = Being a terrorist...

It's too bad she didn't respond that being named Ted Kennedy once caused suspicion of being a terrorist.

 

[Revelationechc]

So what's the consensus on this one? Good stuff, bad stuff or no stuff?

 

[terraformer]

Imagine this line of argument Marks came up with that using a fake name at any point after being licensed is grounds for dismissal. From my cold dead hands will I give up my NES handle!

 

[terraformer]

The term "Calvin Ball" will make it into the next Comm2A brief dealing with licensing and revocation. I am kicking myself for not including it in this one but it's a one shot reference and I didn't want to waste it on an amicus. Oh well.

 

[rchap36]

I think it's a win

 

[dbott63]

The judge that implied that when two firearms owners run across one another in a store a wild west style shootout automatically ensues....holy sh*t!!!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I am concerned that any decision will require considerable analytical strain to comprehend.

An obvious possible motivation for fast tracking is a desire to set the precedent before other cases dealing with the same issue are decided by lower courts. If you look back to 1976 (obviously different players) the SJC grabbed Commonwealth v. Davis sua sponte so it could issue a "no iindividual right to own a firearm" ruling prior to the handgun ban referendum.

 

[rchap36]

The judge that implied that when two firearms owners run across one another in a store a wild west style shootout automatically ensues....holy sh*t!!!

I think the judge was looking someone to gave them something to jump on

 

[noxin]

The way the judges were asking questions of the FRB lawyer, I get the leaning towards Simkin, however, it's Massachusetts, and we'll get screwed anyways.

 

[dixidawg]

Do you think that the justices understand that a license to carry concealed does not REQUIRE the firearm to be concealed?

 

[Mudfish]

I just watched the video. I have no real frame of reference, but it looked like the SJC beat up on that FRB guy pretty good.