Supreme Court decision to challenge Mass Gun Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

Knob Creek

NES Member
Rating - 100%
96   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
10,084
Likes
7,414
Location
South Coast Mass
Maura just thew up in her mouth. And Karins in Littleton have a case of the vapors.


'The Supreme Court this week ordered a lower court to reconsider a controversial Massachusetts gun control law, a directive the high court gave in light of recently issued jurisprudence regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Massachusetts law in question was brought by a state resident who was prohibited from purchasing pistols there due to his having been convicted of unlawfully carrying a handgun in 2004. The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found that the law in question was constitutional under the Second Amendment, which broadly recognizes a right to possess firearms; an appeals court subsequently affirmed that decision.

The Supreme Court, however, this week ordered the ruling vacated, and the case "remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration" in lights of its decision earlier this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

The Bruen ruling held that states may not place undue burdens on citizens seeking handgun-carry permits, specifically that they may not demand residents demonstrate subjective reasons for seeking the permits.

"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 in the majority opinion.


"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need," he added.'

Supreme Court orders lower court to reconsider Massachusetts gun control law

'The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 3 that upheld one of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws, months after the high court expanded Second Amendment rights.

The Massachusetts law in question, the constitutionality of which is now in doubt, imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns—but not possessing them—on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involved the possession or use of guns.

The high court remanded the case, Morin v. Lyver (court file 21-1160), to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s landmark June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.'

'Massachusetts was previously added to Morin v. Lyver as an intervenor to defend the constitutionality of the state law.

The order was unsigned and no justices indicated they were dissenting from it. The justices didn’t explain why they granted the order.

In Bruen, a 6–3 ruling, the high court recognized a constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense and struck down New York’s law that required an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court also found that gun restrictions must be deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Massachusetts requires individuals to obtain licenses in order to possess or purchase handguns, and it disqualifies people with certain criminal convictions from obtaining licenses.

State law also provides that an individual convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that concerned the possession or use of a gun can obtain a license that allows him to possess a handgun at home, but only after five years have passed.'
 
Last edited:

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
10,001
Likes
12,549
Location
Taunton
That they GVR'd the order speaks volumes about their position on HIS case in particular.
As I said in another thread, will likely end up finding the law unconstitutional only as applied to him under the exact circumstance of his DC conviction.
That keeps the case from going anywhere near actual review of the law's constitutionality in general, which they know will fail under Bruen.
They will also likely put in some twisted logic dicta about hoe the law does fit with TH&T but he is God's only exception.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,450
Likes
9,425
Maura just thew up in her mouth. And Karins in Littleton have a case of the vapors.


'The Supreme Court this week ordered a lower court to reconsider a controversial Massachusetts gun control law, a directive the high court gave in light of recently issued jurisprudence regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Massachusetts law in question was brought by a state resident who was prohibited from purchasing pistols there due to his having been convicted of unlawfully carrying a handgun in 2004. The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found that the law in question was constitutional under the Second Amendment, which broadly recognizes a right to possess firearms; an appeals court subsequently affirmed that decision.

The Supreme Court, however, this week ordered the ruling vacated, and the case "remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration" in lights of its decision earlier this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.

The Bruen ruling held that states may not place undue burdens on citizens seeking handgun-carry permits, specifically that they may not demand residents demonstrate subjective reasons for seeking the permits.

"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 in the majority opinion.


"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need," he added.'

Supreme Court orders lower court to reconsider Massachusetts gun control law

'The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 3 that upheld one of Massachusetts’ tough gun laws, months after the high court expanded Second Amendment rights.

The Massachusetts law in question, the constitutionality of which is now in doubt, imposed a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns—but not possessing them—on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that involved the possession or use of guns.

The high court remanded the case, Morin v. Lyver (court file 21-1160), to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Supreme Court’s landmark June 23 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.'

'Massachusetts was previously added to Morin v. Lyver as an intervenor to defend the constitutionality of the state law.

The order was unsigned and no justices indicated they were dissenting from it. The justices didn’t explain why they granted the order.

In Bruen, a 6–3 ruling, the high court recognized a constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defense and struck down New York’s law that required an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

The court also found that gun restrictions must be deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Massachusetts requires individuals to obtain licenses in order to possess or purchase handguns, and it disqualifies people with certain criminal convictions from obtaining licenses.

State law also provides that an individual convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor that concerned the possession or use of a gun can obtain a license that allows him to possess a handgun at home, but only after five years have passed.'

There is a thread on this already

 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
15,450
Likes
9,425
That they GVR'd the order speaks volumes about their position on HIS case in particular.
As I said in another thread, will likely end up finding the law unconstitutional only as applied to him under the exact circumstance of his DC conviction.
That keeps the case from going anywhere near actual review of the law's constitutionality in general, which they know will fail under Bruen.
They will also likely put in some twisted logic dicta about hoe the law does fit with TH&T but he is God's only exception.

They GVR’d it because the district and circuit court used the two step interest balance if test as the standard. SCOTUS eliminated that in the NYSRPA case so it was pretty basic.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
10,001
Likes
12,549
Location
Taunton
They GVR’d it because the district and circuit court used the two step interest balance if test as the standard. SCOTUS eliminated that in the NYSRPA case so it was pretty basic.
They could have let it stand if they agreed with the outcome (denial)
District and Circuit cannot (some will try) use interest balancing disguised as TH&T but that should very quickly be sent back with batch slap speed.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
30,885
Likes
9,525
How come they don't give the actual MGL?????
I've seen about a dozen articles now, saying how the "law" is overturned.

Yet nobody says WHAT LAW it is!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom