- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,256
I know, because we hear it on occasion, that many of you out there are wondering why Comm2A hasn't sued x town over y issue. Today I want to tell you why. Yeah, money is not in ample supply to handle every possible issue all at once, but that's not the biggest problem. In MA, you don't have a recognized right to an LTC. Some of you may have figured this out already from the AGs filings in some cases, but the AG's office is taking the position that all one needs to possess a handgun in the home (the limited amount of the right they acknowledge) is an FID card and the permit to purchase. I can tell you that just about everything you could file under "y issue" you have been wondering about is going to rely on the LTC covering a portion of the right. Every move we have made since Fletcher has been designed to attack that problem. This is why Davis v. Grimes is so important as it serves as our hook into the LTC. This is why the Wesson v. Fowler case was able to proceed (they were barred from getting a permit to purchase too). The Jarvis case and Plouffe cases are all LTC safe in that they don't deal with the scope of the right (though plouffe could easily become a 18-21 yr old rights case).
Any foray into state court doesn't have this problem because state courts must deal with state law as it is and then address constitutional issues on top of that but in federal court, the court is only concerned with what is constitutional. This is why the SJC has been able to address simkin, reyes, and other cases while mostly ignoring the constitutional issues. They only need to address the constitutional issue if they plan on finding against the petitioner (be it defendant or plaintiff). You will note they they found for simkin, and never did so based on any rights he may have had. Same with Reyes mostly, where they "assumed" constitutionality and proceeded from there. They only dealt with constitutional issues directly in McGowan and Chardin, because they found against them.
Anyhow, this is why we have not sued x town over y issue. Once we can, we will open up on the bad actors to the extent our resources allow. Our ability to do this (beyond the issue above) relies on people willing to be plaintiffs and the donations of our supporters.
Any foray into state court doesn't have this problem because state courts must deal with state law as it is and then address constitutional issues on top of that but in federal court, the court is only concerned with what is constitutional. This is why the SJC has been able to address simkin, reyes, and other cases while mostly ignoring the constitutional issues. They only need to address the constitutional issue if they plan on finding against the petitioner (be it defendant or plaintiff). You will note they they found for simkin, and never did so based on any rights he may have had. Same with Reyes mostly, where they "assumed" constitutionality and proceeded from there. They only dealt with constitutional issues directly in McGowan and Chardin, because they found against them.
Anyhow, this is why we have not sued x town over y issue. Once we can, we will open up on the bad actors to the extent our resources allow. Our ability to do this (beyond the issue above) relies on people willing to be plaintiffs and the donations of our supporters.
