Supreme court case against MA on guns

[Spanz]

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

The Supreme Court opened its term on Monday by vacating a ruling on a controversial Massachusetts gun control law and ordering the case to be reheard by a lower court.

www.foxnews.com

this just showed up on the fox news site.
looks new, and different from the other threads on here.

 

[Picton]

Well.

That's significant.

 

[TJ4]

Yes Jared at Guns and Gadgets had this yesterday, too


View: https://youtu.be/O-4N5sBErHw

 

[Sniper (+)]

Yes Jared at Guns and Gadgets had this yesterday, too


View: https://youtu.be/O-4N5sBErHw

really hard to take a middle aged man wearing a captain crunch t-shirt seriously.

 

[Horrible]

Supreme beat down?

From the Fox article:

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’" Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority at the time. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

 

[pastera]

really hard to take a middle aged man wearing a captain crunch t-shirt seriously.

Look closer at the shirt...

 

[ThunderKing]

Corruption has No Home here behind enemy lines in the People's Republic of Massachusetts

 

[ThunderKing]

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

The Supreme Court opened its term on Monday by vacating a ruling on a controversial Massachusetts gun control law and ordering the case to be reheard by a lower court.

www.foxnews.com

this just showed up on the fox news site.
looks new, and different from the other threads on here.

Keep in mind that Fox News is not our friend. They hate us more than the other fake news sites. Whenever you read a Fox News article or watch a Fox News clip, just remember it's for show. Deep down they pump the propaganda, they take the money for the poison marketing and push an agenda. Never forget

 

[Drix]

This lit up some other social media circles the other day.

I can't really see how it would help us as a whole as it's such a unicorn case, but it would be nice to not fear loss of ltc for the pettiest of infractions.

Imagine legally carrying and loosing your ltc forever because you were in a duty to inform state and didn't when the cop rolled up on you changing a tire, or maybe someone spotted your gun while you were dropping a deuce in the bathroom of a national park.

 

[HARRYM]

Keep in mind that Fox News is not our friend. They hate us more than the other fake news sites. Whenever you read a Fox News article or watch a Fox News clip, just remember it's for show. Deep down they pump the propaganda, they take the money for the poison marketing and push an agenda. Never forget

They are indeed right out of little red riding hood. Baier is the worst.

 

[SFC13557]

Keep in mind that Fox News is not our friend. They hate us more than the other fake news sites. Whenever you read a Fox News article or watch a Fox News clip, just remember it's for show. Deep down they pump the propaganda, they take the money for the poison marketing and push an agenda. Never forget

Really? How so? They're the only network covering the open Southern border, asking the Biden Admin tough questions on the economy, inflation, Wuhan Flu, 2A issues,etc.

 

[ThunderKing]

They are indeed right out of little red riding hood. Baier is the worst.

Thank God we have Tucker... he is one of us... but I wonder for how long.

 

[Horrible]

Did Linsky’s head explode after this came out?

 

[ThunderKing]

Really? How so? They're the only network covering the open Southern border, asking the Biden Admin tough questions on the economy, inflation, Wuhan Flu, 2A issues,etc.

That's mostly an act. They were not speaking about those subjects when it mattered.

Btw, you just aged yourself.... fox news is not raw news... it is censored. The proof? They are allowed on the cable TV airwaves.
Any organization that actually spreads truth would have been shut down a long time ago.
Look at OAN. Look at Newsmax. Look at epoch times...
If you are 65+ and can't handle the truth, fox is a good place for you. But if you are looking for truth, you've gotta dig for it. Otherwise the corrupt actors would shut it down and send in the fbi to terrorize your family and harass you. Fox is for Normies... NPC's
I would take anything they say with a grain of salt. I mean they had a Ban on Trump for the longest time... ask yourself why would that happen?
Be careful my friend. We are in an information war... propaganda flies in every direction. Be careful out there.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Bottom line is the 1st circuit can not use intermediate scrutiny and rights balancing when it comes to gun cases.

 

[spt_1955]

Well.

That's significant.

How so?

 

[spt_1955]

Bottom line is the 1st circuit can not use intermediate scrutiny and rights balancing when it comes to gun cases.

^^^ This.

However until we actually have a case that impacts something mainstream (e.g. Suitability, AWB, mag capacity) I'm not sure how it impacts most people.

 

[Picton]

How so?

I'd say anything that specifically applies Bruen to Massachusetts cases is significant.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

really hard to take a middle aged man wearing a captain crunch t-shirt seriously.

Perhaps the shirt was a tribute to Don Draper of 2600 fame.

 

[1903Collector]

Did Linsky’s head explode after this came out?

Probably headed to the barn for some comfort.

 

[EJFudd]

Did Linsky’s head explode after this came out?

We can only hope so!

 

[Garys]

View: https://youtu.be/f4hRnfdFmNk

 

[Hoover]

I think there have been 4 or 5 threads on this case. It’s Morin vs lyver, a comm2a case

Comm2A Files Against Northborough (again) - Morin v. Lyver

Here's this legal fiction that just keep popping up (permit to purchase): "In order to purchase a firearm, someone with a firearm identification card must also obtain a “permit to purchase” under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131A. See id. §§ 129C, 131E(b). And the eligibility criteria for...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[LTCRN]

Will we all get our hundred(s) dollars back?

 

[Garys]

I haven't read the order, but the requirement to have a LTC for mere possession as opposed to concealed carry seems to be a big part of it.

Is this the case where the Commonwealth falsely claimed that there is a "Permit to Purchase" available in MA and yet proffered no proof?

ETA: Here is the order published in today's list. Very short.

21-1160	MORIN, ALFRED V. LYVER, WILLIAM, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The
judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further
consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn.,
Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).

 

[pastera]

I haven't read the order, but the requirement to have a LTC for mere possession as opposed to concealed carry seems to be a big part of it.

Is this the case where the Commonwealth falsely claimed that there is a "Permit to Purchase" available in MA and yet proffered no proof?

Yes - Permit to Purchase.
Guns&Gadgets is from Mass and doesn't know the particulars on the fallacy of a permit to purchase - unfortunately none of the judges involved either.

Nice thing about the GVR is SCOTUS took the case
That shows that they believe that, at least for Morin, a permanent loss of 2A rights for a non-violent misdemeanor is not within TH&T.
Since they didn't just reject saying that Morin is not a "law abiding" person therefore he is not within the protections of the 2A then one of two, or both situations could be correct

1. One can run afoul of the law as a misdemeanant but still be law abiding
2. Licensure of carry is outside TH&T therefore Morin could not have run afoul of the law because permits are unconstitutional
   1. A sub point of that is that permits are a permitted infringement however since Morin was licensed by Mass then DC must accept that licensure.

Both 1 and 2 can be correct at the same time, permits could be unconstitutional (or constitutionally reciprocal) AND permanent loss of rights for non-violent misdemeanors could be unconstitutional


They seem to have pushed out a number of easy cases back to the circuits in order to create a split of how to handle TH&T knowing that the liberal circuits will abuse reality in their interpretation.

 

[Garys]

They've already resolved the circuit split when they decided Bruen. Now they are pushing cases back to the districts and circuits so that the judges therein can correct their erroneous decisions.

The judges in the lower court may not like it, but they have their marching orders.

As with Caetano, SCOTUS has made their expectations clear.

Yes - Permit to Purchase.
Guns&Gadgets is from Mass and doesn't know the particulars on the fallacy of a permit to purchase - unfortunately none of the judges involved either.

Nice thing about the GVR is SCOTUS took the case
That shows that they believe that, at least for Morin, a permanent loss of 2A rights for a non-violent misdemeanor is not within TH&T.
Since they didn't just reject saying that Morin is not a "law abiding" person therefore he is not within the protections of the 2A then one of two, or both situations could be correct.


They seem to have pushed out a number of easy cases back to the circuits in order to create a split of how to handle TH&T knowing that the liberal circuits will abuse reality in their interpretation.

 

[mousegunfan]

Would this affect those with misdemeanors and 2 year plus sentence? Seems very close to the same issue, the courts reasoning. No more denials for misdemeanors period.

 

[pastera]

They've already resolved the circuit split when they decided Bruen. Now they are pushing cases back to the districts and circuits so that the judges therein can correct their erroneous decisions.

The judges in the lower court may not like it, but they have their marching orders.

As with Caetano, SCOTUS has made their expectations clear.

I hit post before I finished typing (I hate touch pads)

They resolved A split with Bruen however they created a completely new standard to be applied in doing so - that standard was not fully described and leaves a lot of room for circuits to interpret the boundaries of what SCOTUS will accept.

They could have directed the circuits to find in a specific manner but did not like it did in Caetano
In Caetano the issue was that a stun gun was completely illegal so her having an LTC didn't factor in.
SCOTUS focused on the lower court's error in the opening statement:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

They then show how the lower courts incorrectly argue that stun guns are not covered in three ways, all of which were well addressed in Heller

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent

The final statement directs the lower court to find that stun guns are in fact included in the 2A.

The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Once SCOTUS declares stun guns to be included in the 2nd then Caetano could not possibly have broken a law since nowhere else was the possession regulated in Mass law.

 

[pastera]

Would this affect those with misdemeanors and 2 year plus sentence? Seems very close to the same issue, the courts reasoning. No more denials for misdemeanors period.

We don't know yet.
What we do know is that at least as applied to Morin in that specific situation, SCOTUS claims that Bruen has significant influence on the decision.