Texas man suing MA

[xero2099]

Knuckledragger is right that the SJC is just drooling over this opportunity to further bone MA gun owners.
No, the NES crowd of 5-7 years ago would likely have thought this guy a knucklehead. The NES crowd of 10 years ago would definitely have thought that this guy was a knucklehead.

As for this guy's case,

was my thought as well, people are smarter now instead of raise hell first ask questions later

 

[LoginName]

Reality is that he should be able to point to Heller and MacDonald and get this crap thrown out. But, MA SJC is a ****ing joke. So there is that.

True, but even in Heller (originally Parker v DC), the original 6 defendants were carefully chosen and vetted...

In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III, for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[5] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Bad defendants make for bad case law, Cassidy is a perfect example.

 

[xtry51]

You're referring to the Texas guy being part of the problem, right?

Nope.

Gun rights groups need to protect the rights of idiots and bad guys too. This whole idea of letting the state steamroll a guy because you don't like him is exactly how gun laws get so bad.

 

[Goliathan]

Nope.

Gun rights groups need to protect the rights of idiots and bad guys too. This whole idea of letting the state steamroll a guy because you don't like him is exactly how gun laws get so bad.

I'm not sure I understand you. This meathead has no chance in succeeding even if the SJC wasn't so anti-gun as it is now. All he's going to succeed in doing is setting bad case law that will be used to further corrode gun rights here.

Just because a group is pro-2A doesn't make it honor-bound to throw good money after bad on every single anti-2A case that comes along. Taking on such cases may well do us more harm than good.

 

[xtry51]

I'm not sure I understand you. This meathead has no chance in succeeding even if the SJC wasn't so anti-gun as it is now. All he's going to succeed in doing is setting bad case law that will be used to further corrode gun rights here.

Just because a group is pro-2A doesn't make it honor-bound to throw good money after bad on every single anti-2A case that comes along. Taking on such cases may well do us more harm than good.

What you just described is a problem that doesn't have a court solution.

 

[ISOTOX]

I wish the BuBa well....

 

[namedpipes]

After reading both articles, it's almost like someone from the AG's office or anti-gun
group egged him on to pursue this. I can almost hear Martha snickering to her staff
'LOL... he took the bait'.

I'm not saying that's what actually happened, it's just that even one of Martha's first
year interns will make this a slam dunk case.

I could believe even a darker level of treachery. I could believe that he was selected and coached by Bloomberg activists to either knowingly or unknowingly create bad case law. In this case, the sketchy history of lying on apps and maybe some sort of explosives misbehavior (is that what I read earlier in this thread?) make me question whether he is on the level at all...

THAT said, I'm not sure I agree that the only qualified entity to bring a case is COMM2A. That approach probably IS better than dozens of uncoordinated attacks, but the automatic answer should NOT be "but he isn't backed by C2A".

Maybe the time is coming for a coordinated attack of THOUSANDS (or 10's of thousands if that's what it takes) of lawsuits against the Commonwealth. How can they handle that caseload? They'll lose some by default or mistakes. Even if they handle ever single one they'll have to hire hundreds or thousands of lawyers and bankrupt the state.

Not kidding.

They (Bloomberg et al) are killing us with relentless legislation, wasting our time and resources fighting each individual attack.

Fight back with massive overload. Overwhelm the system.

 

[drgrant]

Nope.

Gun rights groups need to protect the rights of idiots and bad guys too. This whole idea of letting the state steamroll a guy because you don't like him is exactly how gun laws get so bad.

The problem is egging this dickhead on is effectively condoning him pissing in the well. Garbage precedent can make things a lot more difficult for people trying to do the right thing. This stuff has to be peeled back in layers. A bad decision can make things problematic for people that know what they're doing.

The state already steamrolled this guy btw, this isn't the first go around. And his action is not going to un-steamroll him, either. I'd put money on it. Running around and armflapping "CUZ MAH RIGHTS!!!!" does not get you anywhere in court. Particularly not with this issue where the system is biased against it; so we have to resort to end around attacks at the garbage to destroy it. Going right for the front door doesn't work.

I am going to wager a fair bet that there actually WAS a time where a legal remedy could have been pursued for this guy, but I would also bet
that he went about it completely wrong way, and probably tainted his chances of being able to do that. I mean as it is, this guy was dumb
enough that he didn't suck for the CWOF/plea or whatever and went full trial... probably with inadequate counsel.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

I could believe even a darker level of treachery. I could believe that he was selected and coached by Bloomberg activists to either knowingly or unknowingly create bad case law. In this case, the sketchy history of lying on apps and maybe some sort of explosives misbehavior (is that what I read earlier in this thread?) make me question whether he is on the level at all...

At this stage I would not be surprised, but this guy also seems flakey enough that it won't get moved along (or he'll give up, I mean at some point he is going to seek assistance if he wants to keep filing actions in courts, and someone is probably going to give him a reality check. ) It'd be more believable as a conspiracy though if he had some slipshod lawyer alongside him harrumphing constantly, that Bloomberg & Co were basically bankrolling. So if this is a put-up job it's pretty stealthy, at least right now.

-Mike

 

[xtry51]

The problem is egging this dickhead on is effectively condoning him pissing in the well. Garbage precedent can make things a lot more difficult for people trying to do the right thing. This stuff has to be peeled back in layers. A bad decision can make things problematic for people that know what they're doing.

The state already steamrolled this guy btw, this isn't the first go around. And his action is not going to un-steamroll him, either. I'd put money on it. Running around and armflapping "CUZ MAH RIGHTS!!!!" does not get you anywhere in court. Particularly not with this issue where the system is biased against it; so we have to resort to end around attacks at the garbage to destroy it. Going right for the front door doesn't work.

-Mike

I don't view it like that at all. If you're not going to support him, you probably don't really care that much about rights in general, just that your own little world gets protected. That's a ****ed up position to take on defending natural rights.

 

[MachineHead]

I wish him the best, but lying on applications and having a warrant for "explosive devices" does not make for a good case.

The problem is that the SJC ruling, assuming it's going to be unfavorable for the plaintiff, is going to screw over MA gun owners in future cases while Cassidy is back home in Texas for good.

It's like going into someone's house taking a shit, clogging the toilet, and walking out while everyone who lives in that house has to deal with the mess you left.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Comm2A an chance in reaching out to this guy? Also, anyone know if the court case is open for public attendance?

 

[greencobra]

i'd be sending a squad of texas militia to find and visit his former room mate, swipe him aside the head with a mosin and screw out of dodge. just thinkin' out loud.

 

[drgrant]

I don't view it like that at all. If you're not going to support him, you probably don't really care that much about rights in general, just that your own little world gets protected. That's a ****ed up position to take on defending natural rights.

Not ****ed up at all in my mind- do you want the position most likely to result in an improvement on actually getting people their rights back, or do you want the position that is nearly certain to fail, and pisses in the well and potentially ruins that opportunity for others? It's literally that simple.

My own little world? LOL. What he is doing will likely never affect me one way or the other, even if he ****s up miserably- but could possibly have a drastic affect on other people (just like him!) who have had their rights violated by the state. In the long term he potentially could even be "kicking his own ass" so to speak as other cases could result in some sort of mechanism to restore his rights as well. He's just too stupid to see that forward. Either that or he's being put up to do this intentionally, although that doesn't seem likely... the signs of this are absent, but I would not be surprised if Bloomberg has people waiting in the wings to try something like this.

Being puritanical doesn't often work, assuming that we're playing inside the rules of the system. Now if the argument is that the system is the problem, then that's a whole other ball of wax that would make his claim look small in comparison. (eg, the next civil war, etc, so on. ) You are right to think that , on that level "this does not have a court solution". I just think it's very costly, I don't think most people are willing to go there yet.

-Mike

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Knuckledragger is right that the SJC is just drooling over this opportunity to further bone MA gun owners. ...

True, but even in Heller (originally Parker v DC), the original 6 defendants were carefully chosen and vetted...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Bad defendants make for bad case law, Cassidy is a perfect example.

These two statements are exactly on point. The SJC knows what it's doing here. This is Holden, Chardin, and Caetano all over again. They've found a case that they can use to make 131M bullet proof. Only SCOTUS can reverse them.

The SJC has already decided what they want to do with this case. Cassidy is just handing it to them on a silver platter.

 

[LoginName]

At this stage I would not be surprised, but this guy also seems flakey enough that it won't get moved along (or he'll give up, I mean at some point he is going to seek assistance if he wants to keep filing actions in courts, and someone is probably going to give him a reality check. ) It'd be more believable as a conspiracy though if he had some slipshod lawyer alongside him harrumphing constantly, that Bloomberg & Co were basically bankrolling. So if this is a put-up job it's pretty stealthy, at least right now.

-Mike

Assuming there was any conspiracy present, it wouldn't even have to
involve someone pushing this guys buttons. All it would take is for
someone in the AG's office or Bloomberg camp to make a few phone
calls to the SJC urging them to hear the case.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This guy is part of the problem.

Nope.

Gun rights groups need to protect the rights of idiots and bad guys too. This whole idea of letting the state steamroll a guy because you don't like him is exactly how gun laws get so bad.

This is an easy and idealistic perspective for someone with the luxury of trashing us from the safety of New Hampshire. You're clearly under the delusion that the SJC is interested in getting to the truth and vindicating the Second Amendment rights of Massachusetts residents and visitors. You are wrong sir. The SJC has a documented track record of avoiding difficult (for them) cases and self selecting bad cases they can use to double down on their own precedent.

This guy's case is not salvageable in this forum. If you think for a minute that the SJC is going to decide that this guy was not guilty of violating 131M or decide that 131M is unconstitutional I'll send paramedics to your house because you're clearly on the verge of a fatal overdose. The SJC does not and will not limit themselves to deciding the merits of this guys appeal. They will take this opportunity to lay down the law on the Commonwealth's assault weapon's ban. Once they do that there will be NO opportunity to challenge the ban in federal court. They've already decided this case.

They tried to do this exact thing with Caetano. They did not have to go as far as they did in upholding her 131J conviction, but they wanted to do as much damage as possible to Second Amendment jurisprudence. Had they not been reversed by SCOTUS, we would not have been able to bring Martel v. Healey in federal court. They will try to do the same thing here, but don't expect them to make the same mistake.

Respectfully,
-Part of the problem.

 

[hv55maxx]

Not ****ed up at all in my mind- do you want the position most likely to result in an improvement on actually getting people their rights back, or do you want the position that is nearly certain to fail, and pisses in the well and potentially ruins that opportunity for others? It's literally that simple.

My own little world? LOL. What he is doing will likely never affect me one way or the other, even if he ****s up miserably- but could possibly have a drastic affect on other people (just like him!) who have had their rights violated by the state. In the long term he potentially could even be "kicking his own ass" so to speak as other cases could result in some sort of mechanism to restore his rights as well. He's just too stupid to see that forward. Either that or he's being put up to do this intentionally, although that doesn't seem likely... the signs of this are absent, but I would not be surprised if Bloomberg has people waiting in the wings to try something like this.

Being puritanical doesn't often work, assuming that we're playing inside the rules of the system. Now if the argument is that the system is the problem, then that's a whole other ball of wax that would make his claim look small in comparison. (eg, the next civil war, etc, so on. ) You are right to think that , on that level "this does not have a court solution". I just think it's very costly, I don't think most people are willing to go there yet.

-Mike

cassidy's ego is making him wayyyy too stupid for this to be a bloomturd gig. seems like a total douche just douchin it up

ETA: although, if it came out next week that he's being egged on, i would not be the least bit surprised by the anti's shady tactics, but that is also supporting the theory that they are intelligent enough to go this far (they aren't, they really aren't especially to get this far into the game unnoticed)

 

[LuvDog]

It's great that the guy wants to fight for his rights. The issue is that he's an idiot and trying to go against sharks without a legal team. He's going to get boned and all of us along with him because he's too stubborn to realize that he needs help.

 

[firestorm]

I don't view it like that at all. If you're not going to support him, you probably don't really care that much about rights in general, just that your own little world gets protected. That's a ****ed up position to take on defending natural rights.

Crappy as it may be, fighting for the individual while knowing that he has already lost is not a heroic act. This will only cause the licensing scheme and whatever else they can tie to this to become impossible to fight outside SCOTUS. He is selfish, full stop. It sucks that he lost his rights, its BS that any of the laws he was convicted of exist, but we will not get rid of them this way, this is the same court that states the second amendment doesn't apply to them even after it was made clear by SCOTUS that it does. Basically any appeal to the SJC will fail, no question, because guns.

If he wanted to fight this sort of thing in a federal court he may have had a chance, but I am not a lawyer and have no idea if even that would have helped him. We cannot sacrifice the rights of everyone else (Which will include him once this stuff gets fixed) for a selfish attempt to help one person who should know that it is a losing battle anyway. This could cement the licensing for a generation or more, and as knuckledragger said might also bear on the AWB locking us out from attacking that as well. He is looking at singlehandedly screwing us all with no possible upside for him.

 

[ProGun]

Wonderful. Another raping of MA gun owners on the way after this fool loses his case.

 

[Garys]

I would opine that even if he was smart enough to bring this in Federal Court, he'd lose. The only difference might be that only he'd be screwed, not potentially all gun owners in MA. We're going to take a beating for the ages on this case. All because a moron from Texas exported his stupidity to a state that already has enough 2A problems.

This is an easy and idealistic perspective for someone with the luxury of trashing us from the safety of New Hampshire. You're clearly under the delusion that the SJC is interested in getting to the truth and vindicating the Second Amendment rights of Massachusetts residents and visitors. You are wrong sir. The SJC has a documented track record of avoiding difficult (for them) cases and self selecting bad cases they can use to double down on their own precedent.

This guy's case is not salvageable in this forum. If you think for a minute that the SJC is going to decide that this guy was not guilty of violating 131M or decide that 131M is unconstitutional I'll send paramedics to your house because you're clearly on the verge of a fatal overdose. The SJC does not and will not limit themselves to deciding the merits of this guys appeal. They will take this opportunity to lay down the law on the Commonwealth's assault weapon's ban. Once they do that there will be NO opportunity to challenge the ban in federal court. They've already decided this case.

They tried to do this exact thing with Caetano. They did not have to go as far as they did in upholding her 131J conviction, but they wanted to do as much damage as possible to Second Amendment jurisprudence. Had they not been reversed by SCOTUS, we would not have been able to bring Martel v. Healey in federal court. They will try to do the same thing here, but don't expect them to make the same mistake.

Respectfully,
-Part of the problem.

 

[xero2099]

can one of the Legalese experts here rate this on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being bad the amount if pain this will cause MA gun owners when this guy loses?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I doubt this case will hurt much, as it will just preserve the status-quo of LTC required for handguns/high cap rifles in the home. There is not a prayer a better formulated case, or a more sympathetic plaintiff, would cause the court to decide otherwise.

 

[xtry51]

Not ****ed up at all in my mind- do you want the position most likely to result in an improvement on actually getting people their rights back, or do you want the position that is nearly certain to fail, and pisses in the well and potentially ruins that opportunity for others? It's literally that simple.

My own little world? LOL. What he is doing will likely never affect me one way or the other, even if he ****s up miserably- but could possibly have a drastic affect on other people (just like him!) who have had their rights violated by the state. In the long term he potentially could even be "kicking his own ass" so to speak as other cases could result in some sort of mechanism to restore his rights as well. He's just too stupid to see that forward. Either that or he's being put up to do this intentionally, although that doesn't seem likely... the signs of this are absent, but I would not be surprised if Bloomberg has people waiting in the wings to try something like this.

Being puritanical doesn't often work, assuming that we're playing inside the rules of the system. Now if the argument is that the system is the problem, then that's a whole other ball of wax that would make his claim look small in comparison. (eg, the next civil war, etc, so on. ) You are right to think that , on that level "this does not have a court solution". I just think it's very costly, I don't think most people are willing to go there yet.

-Mike

I prefer the position that puts you behind people whose rights were violated. And then staying there. Not abandoning a citizen because you don't like him or the corrupt system punishing him over nothing.

Seriously, if you're "not willing to go there yet" why post bullshit comments condemning what the guy is doing? AT LEAST HE IS TRYING.

 

[BostonBullit]

This guy is part of the problem.

Yea, the guy that has spent thousands of hours of his own time fighting for everyone's 2A rights via methodically planned out, well executed legal cases is totally part of the problem....totally agree. I just can't believe I didn't see how much of a problem he was before you pointed it out.

 

[StevenMcgrubber]

Massachusetts gun laws suck but they have to be followed. If he transfered his guns like he was supposed to, this situation would be avoided.

 

[Garys]

Perfect!

Yea, the guy that has spent thousands of hours of his own time fighting for everyone's 2A rights via methodically planned out, well executed legal cases is totally part of the problem....totally agree. I just can't believe I didn't see how much of a problem he was before you pointed it out.

 

[bill o]

Massachusetts gun laws suck but they have to be followed.

meh

 

[ISOTOX]

Massachusetts gun laws suck but they have to be followed. If he transfered his guns like he was supposed to, this situation would be avoided.

Baahhhhhhhh......