Supreme court case against MA on guns

[Maxrobot]

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."

 

[Parker Schreiber]

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.

And the way I read the case, SCOTUS is correct in that claim. Quoting from the appellate decision:

For, although it is true that Morin does argue at length that the District Court erred in relying on the conclusion that he is not "law-abiding" in assessing his Heller —based arguments, he fails to develop any argument for applying a greater level of scrutiny than the District Court applied to the actual restrictions at issue due to the vague way in which he describes them at some points and the specific way that he mischaracterizes them at others.

Since the District Court applied so-called "intermediate scrutiny," and the NYSRPA rejected the use of intermediate scrutiny, the 1st Circuit is going to have to invent a different pretext to uphold the licensing scheme. The Supreme Court didn't touch on the assumption and conclusion made at the trial level that:

Because individuals convicted of weapons-related offenses punishable by a term of imprisonment are not, as a class, law-abiding and responsible citizens, Sections 131 and 131A do not implicate the core of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Assistant AG also claimed that an FID allowed a handgun in the home which is factually incorrect but was accepted by the court.

The court eventually rules that Morin did not fully exhaust legal means to have a handgun in the home by having an FID and inheriting a gun.

 

[Garys]

They didn't direct the lower court to do anything other than reconsider the case in light of Bruen in Bruen itself.

As in "My Cousin Vinny" where Joe Pesci said "I think I get the point" that is what the lower courts should understand when a case is GVRed.

Note that I expect a couple of upvotes for getting a My Cousin Vinny reference into a discussion of the Supreme Court.

I've always read Caetano to be intended as a slap down of the Mass SJC. For that matter a case remanded to a state supreme court is different than one remanded to a lower federal court.

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:

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

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

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]

And the way I read the case, SCOTUS is correct in that claim. Quoting from the appellate decision:

Since the District Court applied so-called "intermediate scrutiny," and the NYSRPA rejected the use of intermediate scrutiny, the 1st Circuit is going to have to invent a different pretext to uphold the licensing scheme. The Supreme Court didn't touch on the assumption and conclusion made at the trial level that:

The respondents brief
They argue that Morin didn't argue 2a so Bruen doesn't apply

For all the reasons previously discussed, this case should not be granted, vacated, and remanded in light of this Court’s decision in Bruen. The sole basis for the First Circuit’s affirmance was the petitioner’s failure to offer any argument on whether the restrictions on his ability to obtain firearms comported with this Second Amendment.

Then they pull Bruen doesn't apply because he isn't law abiding

Unlike this matter, Bruen concerned the constitutionality of 22 a restriction on the right of “‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’” to exercise their “Second Amendment right to public carry.” 142 S. Ct. at 2138 n.9 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 635).

They then dig into Alito's concurrence for their reasoning

Nothing in Bruen suggested that individuals with criminal convictions can qualify as “law-abiding,” nor did anything in Bruen suggest that individuals, like the petitioner, with weapons-related criminal convictions can qualify as “responsible,” as those terms were historically understood. See id. at 2157 (Alito, J., concurring) (“Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun.”).

All of that is demonstrably true therefore SCOTUS' reasoning for GVR must be based on one of two avenues (as I see it)
1 - While Morin is demonstrably not law abiding, his history doesn't rise to the level necessary to eclipse a natural right (no other natural right is lost to a non-violent misdemeanor)
2 - Morin is law abiding because either licensing is not constitutional or states must treat people equally with respect to licensing and therefore all licenses are reciprocal.

Both can be true and hopefully are
If 2 is true that effects the largest group.
If 1 is true then people who have been jacked up for possession when traveling in/through anti states will get relief.

 

[TJ4]

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

Guns & Gadgets and the Armed Scholar are two of the better 2A news channels on YouTube. Jared at Guns & Gadgets tends to post more often and with more “breaking” news, and then he’ll follow up with more in depth in later videos.

 

[TJ4]

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

Guns & Gadgets and the Armed Scholar are two of the better 2A news channels on YouTube. Jared at Guns & Gadgets tends to post more often and with more “breaking” news, and then he’ll follow up with more in depth in later videos.

 

[EJFudd]

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.

Jared should know that stuff. Very disappointing if he doesn't.

 

[SFC13557]

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.

FOX is the only mainstream media on OUR side. I subscribe to the Epoch Times, Townhall.com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. Like the NRA, FOX News makes leftist heads explode, NEWSMAX had a good start but caved after the election and canceled Howie Carr because of Joe Genovese's comment.

 

[SFC13557]

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

Baier is a reporter, not an opinion commentator. His show is hard news and he invites all takers on his show. I've seen plenty of Dems squirm on his show under his questioning. Waters, Hannity, Ingraham are opinion shows.

 

[SFC13557]

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

Tucker has gone quite squishy on the war in the Ukraine, I've been watching him since his CNN days with Maddow. He's an isolationist.

 

[Buck F]

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.

Baier is a reporter, not an opinion commentator. His show is hard news and he invites all takers on his show. I've seen plenty of Dems squirm on his show under his questioning. Waters, Hannity, Ingraham are opinion shows.

You have to separate Fox News reporting from their primetime hosts. The hard news crew isn't a whole lot better than CNN, they state things as fact that are not and use the same buzzwords as CNN.

The only redeeming value of Fox News are the Prime Time commentators. Tucker is generally good. I can't watch Hannity. Ingraham is hot and smarter than all of them, but can't really watch her for long either. Waters is pretty funny, Gutfeld is freaking hilarious. If you haven't seen Waters or Guftfekd's new shows, they're worth a look.

 

[SausageGuy]

Tucker has gone quite squishy on the war in the Ukraine, I've been watching him since his CNN days with Maddow. He's an isolationist.

a person favoring a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
I had to search for the meaning online lol
Ukraine is a Scam. I don't support money laundering. Thankfully I believe atleast 33% of Americans understand this is a massive money laundering and proxy war type situation from a corrupt USA government. And for the record. I hope Zelensky the actor gets bombed to pieces, such a rotten scumbag

 

[pastera]

Jared should know that stuff. Very disappointing if he doesn't.

I don't expect him to know every oddity of Mass law and I don't think I would do a better job getting info out so I'll give him some room on this one

 

[Coyote33]

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.

This is not new, it's been around since 2018.

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

The First Circuit told Alfred Morin he couldn't challenge his license prohibition because he didn't apply for the 'right' combination of licenses. Well, now he can. He got the FID, the PTP was denied, and the NPD Chief gets sued again - Morin v. Lyver.

www.northeastshooters.com

It has been mentioned in a few other threads recently also.

 

[Ron Jablonski]

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.

It's a business, they exist to make money, nothing more. They create content tailored towards a demographic they've identified as large enough to make it worth their while. Pay attention to the commercials on the broadcasts and the click bait on the website. They're just showing you things they think your likely to respond to, not "the truth". They profit from your engagement, no different than any other network or website.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Morin case was top and center on Foxnews.com for a while today.

 

[drgrant]

Did Linsky’s head explode after this came out?

I’m sure he was too busy f***ing a goat or something like that to care. he’s not even a real “mover” anti, he basically hard panders to them for political purposes because it’s pretty obvious there are a lot of anti voters in his district….. most of his legislation is garbage and he even knows that upfront he just files it so that the antis will jerk off over it and tell him what a “nice guy” he is. Considering that those types of people are usually dumber than boxes of rocks his ruse works on them pretty well more than likely…..

 

[drgrant]

Jared should know that stuff. Very disappointing if he doesn't.

Admittedly it’s obscure enough that most firearms instructors in mass probably don’t even know about it unless they’ve been around a reeeeeealt long time….. or they’ve spent a long time studying the weird progression of gun laws in the state.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

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

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.

A bit off the topic (but not as far off as Fox News ). I have been saying since Caetano if stun guns are included in 2A then surely those handguns not on the MA Approved Roster are also, when are we going to get that case in the light of Bruen?

The respondents brief
They argue that Morin didn't argue 2a so Bruen doesn't apply

Then they pull Bruen doesn't apply because he isn't law abiding

They then dig into Alito's concurrence for their reasoning


All of that is demonstrably true therefore SCOTUS' reasoning for GVR must be based on one of two avenues (as I see it)
1 - While Morin is demonstrably not law abiding, his history doesn't rise to the level necessary to eclipse a natural right (no other natural right is lost to a non-violent misdemeanor)
2 - Morin is law abiding because either licensing is not constitutional or states must treat people equally with respect to licensing and therefore all licenses are reciprocal.

It should be 1 & 2 but if not then I am biased toward #2 because it will not only affect a larger number of gun owning citizens but also it will make the anti cry the loudest. Can you imagine the wailing if MA, NY, NJ were told they had to honor any state's permit?

 

[Retired-LEO]

Did Linsky’s head explode after this came out?

Hopefully it did! I met him once and you could tell, that everyone in the room wanted to punch him in the head. He's a bag of shit!

 

[Fixxah]

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

Vucking weasel. Hate him.

 

[TG Pioneer]

A bit off the topic (but not as far off as Fox News ). I have been saying since Caetano if stun guns are included in 2A then surely those handguns not on the MA Approved Roster are also, when are we going to get that case in the light of Bruen?




It should be 1 & 2 but if not then I am biased toward #2 because it will not only affect a larger number of gun owning citizens but also it will make the anti cry the loudest. Can you imagine the wailing if MA, NY, NJ were told they had to honor any state's permit?

They should be honoring other states LTCs. Article IV, section I of the US Constitution, the full faith and credit clause is the justification for recognition of other states marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc. Setting aside the obvious infringement that a pistol permit is for a moment, why don’t other states recognize them? Why has nobody ever used this in a court case where someone got pinched with a gun in an anti state?

 

[pastera]

A bit off the topic (but not as far off as Fox News ). I have been saying since Caetano if stun guns are included in 2A then surely those handguns not on the MA Approved Roster are also, when are we going to get that case in the light of Bruen?

The approved roster would be argued under Heller with Caetano amplifying that since the unapproved handguns are bearable arms they are prima facia outside the state's legislative and regulatory powers.
Bruen only comes into play in that it explicitly prohibits the same interest balancing that both Heller and McDonald claim insufficient protection for an enumerate right.

I believe it is more properly argued as a commerce issue by business but because that isn't an enumerated area the answer will always be 'because guns.' So that leaves consumers to argue their right to a particular arm which muddied the waters (if a company doesn't care to market into Mass can consumers force them?)

 

[pastera]

Hopefully it did! I met him once and you could tell, that everyone in the room wanted to punch him in the head. He's a bag of shit!

I have met very few people that instill such instinctual feelings of disgust as he does. Didn't know who he was when the gut feeling of 'don't be near this person' drew my attention to him.

 

[pastera]

They should be honoring other states LTCs. Article IV, section I of the US Constitution, the full faith and credit clause is the justification for recognition of other states marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc. Setting aside the obvious infringement that a pistol permit is for a moment, why don’t other states recognize them?

Because 'gunz'

Why has nobody ever used this in a court case where someone got pinched with a gun in an anti state?

Before Heller there was no federally recognized right to possess arms in the home for self defense
Before McDonald there was no State level right to possess firearms for self defense in the home.
With Bruen the right to armed self defense outside the home is finally recognized.

In short, until Bruen possession of an operable firearm outside the home was a state privilege without any protections. And that is why we never saw a push for LTC reciprocity.

 

[Picton]

Because 'gunz'

Before Heller there was no federally recognized right to possess arms in the home for self defense
Before McDonald there was no State level right to possess firearms for self defense in the home.
With Bruen the right to armed self defense outside the home is finally recognized.

In short, until Bruen possession of an operable firearm outside the home was a state privilege without any protections. And that is why we never saw a push for LTC reciprocity.

And yet, we still have posters here who dismiss Bruen because it didn't lead to immediate unicorn-fart constitutional carry across the land.

It's a massively significant decision, and that will only become more apparent as time marches on.

 

[pastera]

And yet, we still have posters here who dismiss Bruen because it didn't lead to immediate unicorn-fart constitutional carry across the land.

It's a massively significant decision, and that will only become more apparent as time marches on.

The same people who rant about low information voters on the other side of the equation but don't bother to read the opinions or the commentaries on the opinions to understand that each case builds a foundation for the next logical step in the process like a staircase each step brings you closer AND if the steps are too high the staircase becomes precarious and dangerous to traverse.

While reading the opinions and commentaries, I try to understand how each declaratory statement fits the argument and how that statement can be used as a foundational support for the next logical bite at the apple.
Even when I try to explain the progression of logic I get push back from those who don't read past a headline of 'well it hasn't happened so your wrong' - if my logic is wrong present your evidence and logic showing such, or STFU and sit in the gallery and listen to those willing to spend hours tryng to understand and debate the insanely complex process.

 

[SS1]

As soon as Maura becomes queen
It will be
Off with their heads

 

[pastera]

As soon as Maura becomes queen
It will be
Off with their heads
View attachment 670208

Or she will be forced to sign new legislation removing the infringements she campaigned on...