Texas man suing MA

This guy doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Perhaps the fact that he can't find an attorney in MA that believe passionately in rights ISNT because they don't exit, but because he is ****ing delusional as to the reality of the result of his case.

If that is the case, then I hope to god no one ever has to have this guy as an attorney (assuming he got to finish law school and the bar association let him in, I don't know if they did or not).

Indeed!


From Page 5 - http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/clerk-for-commonwealth/far-25173-application.pdf

the state licensing scheme punished him
with felonies for a lack of state, discretionary permit/license and unpaid excise tax
on firearms he 'imported' to the state as a new resident of Massachusetts
.

Say what??
 
Interesting case. One has to wonder if he loses big-time, but the USSC de-facto reverses it due to their rulings on other cases in the next year or three.
 
So I guess I should revise my statement that caused some controversy 2 pages ago:

The NES crowd that has been banned over the last 5-7 years would support this guy.
The NES crowd here today, not so much.
[smile]
 
This guy doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Perhaps the fact that he can't find an attorney in MA that believe passionately in rights ISNT because they don't exit, but because he is ****ing delusional as to the reality of the result of his case.

If that is the case, then I hope to god no one ever has to have this guy as an attorney (assuming he got to finish law school and the bar association let him in, I don't know if they did or not).

The bottom line is that he spent two years in jail and is a federally prohibited person for doing something that is 100% legal in 90% of the United States. From his perspective, he has nothing to lose, there's only upside. The fact that any legal attempts to attach the MA AWB will likely be collateral damage is besides the point, because it's not his problem.

If it makes anyone feel any better, the SJC was going to find a bad AWB case to take sooner or later.
 
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.
There are good clients for precedental cases.

Look at Fletcher v. Haas. Com2A did not find a cab driver from Yemen living in Dorchester who wanted to own a handgun to challenge the ban on LTC issuance to non-citizens.

We found an MD and a honorably retired English army veteran to bring our case. So yes, "perfect clients" do exist.

Stating that "hanging him out to dry" while waiting for "mythical perfect client" is a stretch. Parading an applicant with an arrest warrant from another state (TX) for possession of explosive components as a poster child before the court would be just plain stupid.

As to this case ... the best client is not someone who was a fugitive from the state, arrested, tried and convicted but rather someone in a similar situation who did not defy the system. Oh, and "student" implicitly brings the "college kid wants access to a gun" image to mind - another strike against it.

OK, not perfect. But certainly better. And with an actual lawyer. The point is this is a slam dunk and the SJC knows it.
The SJC has a track record of taking cases (often sua sponte) for the purpose of issuing an anti-2A ruling. Back in 1976 when there was a handgun ban referendum, the SJC took a case before the vote so that it could rule that the 2A only allowed the government to arm it's employees, and did not apply to ordinary people - thus "pre-clearing" the legality of the proposed law.
The bottom line is that he spent two years in jail and is a federally prohibited person for doing something that is 100% legal in 90% of the United States.
Being a fugitive from another state's arrest warrant is not legal in any state. I suspect this, plus a refusal to plea bargain, accounted for much of the seemingly excessive sentence.
 
Last edited:
The SJC has a track record of taking cases (often sua sponte) for the purpose of issuing an anti-2A ruling. Back in 1976 when there was a handgun ban referendum, the SJC took a case before the vote so that it could rule that the 2A only allowed the government to arm it's employees, and did not apply to ordinary people - thus "pre-clearing" the legality of the proposed law.

All the judicial and legislative activism there has been lately makes jury's tend to ignore laws and judges. I know the next time the haul me in there, I won't give a crap about laws or judges instructions - I'm voting for what I think is right.
 
Is any anti-2A ruling unconstitutional? yes or no ? No other answer is accepted.

The true answer is YES. This guy is getting ****ed over for a RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't understand why this has to be so hard. WTF
 
Is any anti-2A ruling unconstitutional? yes or no ? No other answer is accepted.

The true answer is YES. This guy is getting ****ed over for a RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't understand why this has to be so hard. WTF

It has nothing to do with that. . . . very sadly. If this was just about ANY other state, I think everyone would be behind him 100%.

But this is MA. With decades of legislating from the bench, (read: Gay Marriage - agree or not with it, the fix was in BEFORE they brought the case and was encouraged by Margaret Whatshername. Publicly!) you can't expect a good outcome. Our solution lies in further rulings from the USSC. Effectively nullifying the MASJC's nullification of our rights.
 
Is any anti-2A ruling unconstitutional? yes or no ? No other answer is accepted.

The true answer is YES. This guy is getting ****ed over for a RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't understand why this has to be so hard. WTF

Philosophy vs reality. I agree with you, the second is absolute, but here in reality we have to deal with the system since it is backed by government goons with guns who are more than willing to use them. We have been making progress within the system, and this guy is going to throw a wrench into legit efforts to get rid of these laws and bring us more in line with what should be.
 
Maybe we will get lucky and the SJC will not be able to restrain their contempt for the little people; to the point that their ruling is so over the top smug that an appeal to SCotUS winds up delivering another Caetano VS Massachusetts style rebuke?
 
When you are about to do something stupid it is an obligation of your friends to bitch-slap you and ask what the F do you think you are doing...Doesn't this guy have any friends?
 
Cassidy argued his case before the SJC last Friday. The court heard two similar questions in the same sitting:
Video of the consolidated arguments can be found here. Brown is first. Cassidy starts at 18:30.

Link to video isn't working.
 
Back
Top Bottom