Texas man suing MA

[Arto]

He who represents himself has a fool for a client - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Law student fights unconstitutional law, and almost all are crying OMG ! ****, lets find out how to help this guy out. Not bash him or whine, OMG !!!! I am trying to find out how to help. If anyone has anything pass it along.

 

[Picton]

Kid's doomed. And his precedent will hurt all of us.

Idealism is great, but by definition it isn't realistic. Ideal-land is simple; real life is hard. It needs people who can plan and strategize.

Keep fighting the deep fight, Knuckledragger.

 

[GM-GUY]

I figure if he wants to sue, go ahead ZFG about what the court says - I choose to live as a free man and not worry about what the state says as it's a moving target anyway. The 2A says the same thing it did in 1789 - I'll go with that.

 

[KBCraig]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20110304/NEWS/103040351

"AK-47 military assault rifle"? Does anyone see a rifle in that picture?

 

[Laura]

i searched but didnt find any threads about this unless i didn't go back far enough

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co..._state_gun_licensing_law#.WVZHaIOXh74.twitter

I read that at work with some amusement..... As they say: "A man that acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client."

 

[GM-GUY]

May I add "and a man who trusts his lawyer is the king of all fools."

 

[Fasteddy]

I wonder if he's related to Hopalong Cassidy. Nah, couldn't be. Hoppy was smarter.


Fast

 

[mjbff]

guy got some balls but no coin he will lose too bad

 

[Rob Boudrie]

His pro-se efforts don't exactly have a stellar track record: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20150807994/CASSIDY v. HEALEY

And then there is this little gem: http://montgomerycountypolicereport...ion-of-the-components-of-an-explosive-device/

 

[Goliathan]

Yikes. It's hard to imagine a worse test case for saving us all from the tyranny of the SJC. I bet they're doing the happy dance waiting for this one to come in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What this case will accomplish is that a squeaky clean plaintiff without any baggage will not be able to bring a similar case since the issue has been decided. I have not been able to find any articles on the disposition of the charges he was facing in TX.

 

[MachineHead]

Has Comm2A spoken to this guy to try to talk some sense into him?

There's also the possibility he's the young arrogant type who wants to do what he wants without looking at the bigger picture.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Has Comm2A spoken to this guy to try to talk some sense into him?

There's also the possibility he's the young arrogant type who wants to do what he wants without looking at the bigger picture.

I doubt that would be effective. The call would be something along the lines of "We would like you to accept the fact that you have to live with a felony conviction for the rest of your life". It's like trying to convince a dying person not to try that one last medical therapy.

 

[Bonesinium]

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.

Do you envision any case in which the MA SJC would have a ruling that positively impacts gun rights? If the answer is no, and based on what I'm reading how they operate, the answer is no, then you are saying you'd bend over and accept it rather than have to be forced over to take it. Simple I guess, either way, you're on the side that is getting ****ed.

But if you can show me where even a tailor made suit set up perfectly for a positive outcome is accepted AND succeeds with the MA SJC and maybe you'll be on to something. Because every case I've read about ends exactly the same, regardless of merit.

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

Now you are on to something. He isn't the problem at all. Not even slightly. The "system" is the problem. It's not another ball of wax. It's the only one.

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.

I'm pretty sure I can safely speak for him, and if not, I'll speak for myself. There is no assumption that the SJC has any interest in the truth, upholding rights, or even upholding MA statutes if they don't suit their interests. None. In fact the assumption is exactly the opposite.

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.

Indeed. Yet for some reason, you still play their game, no? Why?

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.

You play, but he shouldn't play, because you know they don't play fair? Odd rationale.

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.

You are no more a part of the problem than he is. The MA SJC is the problem. And that you know.

 

[whatluck]

The whole system is broken, I agree. So if the guy wants to push buttons, then why really care? He's probably only pushing us farther towards go time.

 

[E.Stoner]

What this case will accomplish is that a squeaky clean plaintiff without any baggage will not be able to bring a similar case since the issue has been decided. I have not been able to find any articles on the disposition of the charges he was facing in TX.

This^^^

 

[weekendracer]

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.

The problem would be thousands of lawsuits with nuanced differences. If they are all "A" law is bad, they will get jammed by precedence. Heller was different from Macdonald, which is why they both went all the way up. Attack every word of the law with a case and how that word makes this case different.

 

[Picton]

Research the successful civil rights campaign against repressive southern Jim Crow laws during the 1950-60s timeframe. It consisted of carefully chosen and targeted court cases that built on each other in a coordinated way, using the precedents to successively box judges into prior rulings. The NAACP selected each plaintiff to make sure the precedents would be durable.

That's Comm2a, in a nutshell and on a smaller scale.

The whole thing worked, but took awhile; in the meantime, many blacks lost patience. Understandable.

But Comm2a is fighting for a clearly affirmed set of rights that will last forever, even here. The price is short-term impatience.

 

[tcarter01]

Chief Justice Gants meeting Mr. Cassidy at the courtroom podium....



-

 

[xtry51]

What this case will accomplish is that a squeaky clean plaintiff without any baggage will not be able to bring a similar case since the issue has been decided. I have not been able to find any articles on the disposition of the charges he was facing in TX.

Again, I fail to see how hanging one person out to dry is justified by you waiting around for this mystical perfect client while years and decades of abuse continues.

 

[gunofthrones]

the only justice you can get is probably throwing eggs at AG, then you will be arrested again.

 

[Goliathan]

Again, I fail to see how hanging one person out to dry is justified by you waiting around for this mystical perfect client while years and decades of abuse continues.

I might argue that the guy is hanging himself out to dry. He broke the law, and while I might feel that law is stupid and unconstitutional, it's a hopeless fight to argue the fact before the very body responsible for making it so onerous through case law. Can you honestly not see that their acceptance (and immediate destruction) of this case this will be nothing more than yet another brick in the SJC's anti-gun stone wall?

I feel sorry for the guy, I really do. I hope he wins, for all our sakes, because when he loses he'll be damaging us all.

 

[firestorm]

Do you envision any case in which the MA SJC would have a ruling that positively impacts gun rights? If the answer is no, and based on what I'm reading how they operate, the answer is no, then you are saying you'd bend over and accept it rather than have to be forced over to take it. Simple I guess, either way, you're on the side that is getting ****ed.

But if you can show me where even a tailor made suit set up perfectly for a positive outcome is accepted AND succeeds with the MA SJC and maybe you'll be on to something. Because every case I've read about ends exactly the same, regardless of merit.




Now you are on to something. He isn't the problem at all. Not even slightly. The "system" is the problem. It's not another ball of wax. It's the only one.





I'm pretty sure I can safely speak for him, and if not, I'll speak for myself. There is no assumption that the SJC has any interest in the truth, upholding rights, or even upholding MA statutes if they don't suit their interests. None. In fact the assumption is exactly the opposite.



Indeed. Yet for some reason, you still play their game, no? Why?




You play, but he shouldn't play, because you know they don't play fair? Odd rationale.



You are no more a part of the problem than he is. The MA SJC is the problem. And that you know.

So it is made clear here you don't know how courts work. The issue is not that someone will bring a case to the SJC and win, the issue is that if they rule on it the only recourse is SCOTUS. Since this case will not make it to the supreme court, and if it does we will lose because it's a terrible case, all it does is screw any chance of reversing this law anytime soon. If he challenges it and loses here, a similar case cannot be brought since it is settled decided law. So by doing this here, instead of in a federal court where our side might get a hearing he is dooming mass residents to not be able to challenge this law in the proper way.

It sucks he lost his rights, and his chosen career but there is nothing to be done for him now, the way to go is to fix the laws then challenge for his rights back.

Again, I fail to see how hanging one person out to dry is justified by you waiting around for this mystical perfect client while years and decades of abuse continues.

Because his rights are gone, and this will not solve it. If we want his rights back it has to be fought the right way, and he sues for it on the back end after the law has been shot down. By doing it this way we will never get our rights secured, and he will never succeed. You act like this is some heroic crusade that will accomplish something, this is just him stabbing us all in the back because he can't bring himself to look at the big picture and realize that his rights, while important, can't be put ahead of the harm he will do here.

 

[Bonesinium]

So it is made clear here you don't know how courts work.

Well, I'm sure you're going to enlighten me then!

The issue is not that someone will bring a case to the SJC and win,

Glad that's settled. They won't win. Got it.

the issue is that if they rule on it the only recourse is SCOTUS.

The recourse is it could get elevated. Okay. Not sure why that's an "issue" though, but go on.

Since this case will not make it to the supreme court,

Now it won't get elevated. Alright.

and if it does

Wait, now it might? What an unexpected turn of fortune!

we will lose because it's a terrible case,

Damn, guess not that fortunate, after all.

all it does is screw any chance of reversing this law anytime soon.

More or less than before?

If he challenges it and loses here, a similar case cannot be brought since it is settled decided law.

Oh, this must be where you explain to me how courts work. If one guy has one case, and you have a similar one, you are out of luck! How interesting. Anyone with actual legal experience care to weigh in on this one?

So by doing this here, instead of in a federal court

Oh, he can just bring this MA state law issue to any court he wants? I guess you are teaching me something new! Anyone again, with actual legal experience, care to weigh in here? Is that how things work?

where our side might get a hearing he is dooming mass residents to not be able to challenge this law in the proper way.

It sucks he lost his rights, and his chosen career but there is nothing to be done for him now, the way to go is to fix the laws then challenge for his rights back.

Got it! He lost, back up and leave. Don't bother fighting. I mean, why do you even care, if "there is nothing to be done"?

Because his rights are gone, and this will not solve it.

Got it. He has no rights, and don't you dare bring any legal challenges!

If we want his rights back it has to be fought the right way, and he sues for it on the back end after the law has been shot down.

That's how courts work? You can sue for your rights? Damn, you really are teaching me a lot!

By doing it this way we will never get our rights secured, and he will never succeed.

By challenging things in court you will never succeed. Well no shit. Maybe you didn't understand my position.

You act like this is some heroic crusade that will accomplish something,

Now I KNOW you didn't understand my position. I didn't act like that even slightly.

this is just him stabbing us all in the back because he can't bring himself to look at the big picture and realize that his rights, while important, pale in comparison to the harm he is going to do to us all.

Got it. You shouldn't ever fight for your rights because someone else might not like it.

Perfect illustration of what xtry51 was talking about right here. A shitty ass position to take on defending natural rights. Well, mainly because it isn't a position of defending them.

 

[42!]

What this case will accomplish is that a squeaky clean plaintiff without any baggage will not be able to bring a similar case since the issue has been decided. I have not been able to find any articles on the disposition of the charges he was facing in TX.

I was wondering the same thing. If he has a felony conviction this is all moot, if it hasn't been settled yet the SJC isn't going to even look at the case, and even if he gets a non-conviction in TX that'll be enough for a suitability denial inb MA. There is no good coming from this and the kid doesn't get it. Besides, it's go Fed or go home.

This isn't just rhetoric to me, I have real skin in the game (although not PP like this guy). And despite my rantings to Rob and Brent I do get the difficulty of the situation.

 

[Goliathan]

This is exactly the issue, that people seem to be missing. This guy is going to crash and burn, the SJC knows this, which is why they're so eager to take the case I have no doubt. Then, when the perfect guy with an actual argument comes along, they'll just shut the door on him because it's already been argued and settled.

 

[Jason Flare]

There is no perfect guy.

For instance he will have been charged and convicted of a crime.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

So much fail in one thread. It should be the fail mega thread.

 

[Goliathan]

There is no perfect guy.

For instance he will have been charged and convicted of a crime.

OK, not perfect. But certainly better. And with an actual lawyer. The point is this is a slam dunk and the SJC knows it.