As written, the SCOTUS ruling seems to be against arbitrary, opinion based, or even poorly defined suitability, not the word itself. So I can see MA keeping suitability by claiming its well defined as a risk to public safety, right or wrong. What the ruling will do is lock down the reason and make it easier to appeal. No more "broad discretion", the old standard that the MA courts still apply despite the new language. Of course this may take a court challenge to get to this point.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
crispnipz
NES Member
View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2
They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
We follow Maura, but restrictions must be honored!
OK GROOMER.
These fools are hillarious.
OK GROOMER.
These fools are hillarious.
I think those are all gone away now. Are you saying under her new "guidance", they are still here?
Before Bruen, suitability included "dangerousness". It also included other things. After Bruen, it should not exist, except as already described.
Let's make it more complicated. How about a DUI, but it was "continued without finding"? Plus, the guy is a known alcoholic/drinker. Sure is tempting to not issue under "suitability". What to do?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
The new guidance did not change the standard of suitability, and we can expect the state to double down.
As to "dangerousness" - This is true, but the courts routinely ignored that standard (that post-dated Moyer) and generally referred to the Moyer standard which was "Did the issuing authority feel (s)he had a reason to deny that was not arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion". Numerous appeals were lost because of denial reasons not including dangerousness. Someone (no idea who) pulled the magic words "de novo" out of the latest updates to MA gun law at the last minute. That would have been a game changer.
As to the OUI/CWOF - basically whatever the issuing authority wants to do.
The stage is ripe for litigation on due process issues now that carry is a right, and the federal court can deny standing because an LTC is allegedly not the "lowest level permit that allows you to exercise your 2A right". It is going to be hard too successfully argue that deprivation of a constitutional right is not punishment requiring due process - but I expect to argue it is still just an administrative matter.
pastera
NES Member
View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2
They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
Police are allowed to lie to you.
They are taking full advantage of it
JRT
NES Member
I would think a win in New Jersey against the AWB would be a win for Massachusetts. Maybe you all can buy scary guns again soon.
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfhA_TnKgv9/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfhA_TnKgv9/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
JRT
NES Member
I wanted to leave this too,
Support FPC and GOA
f*** the NRA
Support FPC and GOA
f*** the NRA
EJFudd
NES Member
Were they involved? Anyone know for sure?
All I could find is that they provided grant monies to an individual to file an amicus brief. Maybe more. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is an NRA affiliate ... which I don't know what that means in the grand scheme.
via (anti-rag):
The NRA Paid a Gun Rights Activist to File SCOTUS Briefs. He Didn't Disclose it to the Court.
Hacked documents suggest attorney David Kopel, who filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. Bruen, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA Foundation.
www.thetrace.org
I think it's the kind of thing where if you're a member of NYSRPA, you're therefore "affiliated with" the NRA. Which is the kind of thing that'll help you get a CMP rifle, say.
My club is "affiliated with" the NRA, too. I have no idea what that means.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
It means they can buy liability insurance that pays a commission to the NRA.
JRT
NES Member
I like that you troll me we that NRA ad every time I say f*** the NRA.
Also, f*** the NRA. Support FPC and GOA!
JRT
NES Member
I’m sure an actual lawyer can provide a better answer, the cost to support an amicus brief is very broad. I’m sure one going to SCOTUS is going to be quite detailed. The cost could be from a few thousand to many thousands depending on the research.All I could find is that they provided grant monies to an individual to file an amicus brief. Maybe more. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is an NRA affiliate ... which I don't know what that means in the grand scheme.
via (anti-rag):
The NRA Paid a Gun Rights Activist to File SCOTUS Briefs. He Didn't Disclose it to the Court.
Hacked documents suggest attorney David Kopel, who filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. Bruen, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA Foundation.
This was sent back to the lower court, not yet a decision. The problem is now a lower court will rule against the ban and not be president. Good news but it won't make MA change unless a lawsuit is filed here.
Isn't now the time for MA GOAL to start filing lawsuits asap?I like that you troll me we that NRA ad every time I say f*** the NRA.
Also, f*** the NRA. Support FPC and GOA!
Must be. Definitely. What else would it be, but a race thing.
Not their lane.
RI 2A groups have filed against magazine capacity restrictions, so the 1st circuit will strike those down, but MA would have to file for the AWB stuff.
GOAL is legislation
Comm2A is courts
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
Maybe you want to tell them that you lost the LTC and want a new one. Jack.
BigGreen2000
NES Member
Are we so sure that the First Circuit would actually follow SCOTUS?
Well, no.
But that's what appeals are for... Eventually it would reach SCOTUS, and SCOTUS would bend the First Circuit over their knee and spank the shit out of them.
Garys
NES Member
It was not on purpose, purely coincidence if it happened. Anyhow, I see that, and just wanted to let people know the NRA is claiming this as their victory. I don't know whether or not that is true, or to what degree it is or isn't. Just putting the info out there. Sorry if it happened twice.I like that you troll me we that NRA ad every time I say f*** the NRA.
Also, f*** the NRA. Support FPC and GOA!
Isn't NOW the time for GOAL to start filing LEGISLATION?
Mesatchornug
NES Member
View: https://twitter.com/MedfordPolice/status/1543001427601129474/photo/2
They say they are bringing their practices into compliance with EOPSS and then link the EOPSS document which seems to negate restrictions and then in the same tweet attach an image that says restrictions are still real. Neutering the ability of red towns to restrict seems to be like trying to wrestle a nut from a squirrel.
It would be hilarious if @Comm2A and/or @GOAL were to reply to that post, offering to help them reread the guidance letter they'd just linked... or maybe @nstassel?
This begs the question of do the Circuit courts who are anti gun want to risk SCOTUS overturning their decision and making the affect national? The 9th Circuit seems like is going to be the first to re-hear a magazine capacity case under the new Bruen standards, given how fast this could move I don't think the 9th wants to pull shit and have every state with a magazine capacity ban thrown out before the year ends.
Same goes for MD with the AWB case.
It may come to a point when the last circuit with a magazine capacity or AWB case is hearing it and all the other circuits have struck those laws down as then at that point there's nothing left to lose as SCOTUS would hear the case and it would be nationwide anyway.
I give it another 12 months and RI and Mass will be free of these magazine bans.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
- Messages
- 32
- Likes
- 45
Upholding the constitution has never been Medford PD's strong point. They are much better at falsifying time cards.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
All the inevitable future court wins belong to We The People. Watching these cases be decided is gonna be like watching one of those old time vampire movies where in the final act the good guys finally drive a stake through Dracula's heart, one vicious blow after another, the hammer driving the stake deeper and deeper, until evil is annihilated.
