Want your restrictions removed? See this post for how.

[ntomsw]

Politically they (MCOPA) have to appeal. No way they want to lose control of "suitability" and "discretion" so they will drag this up to the USSC if necessary to keep it the way it is.

Decision gets stayed until final resolution at USSC (decision or denial of cert) or failure to appeal in time. This is a "long game", not something that will be resolved in less than a few years.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. I figured as much, just wasn't sure.

 

[sbi]

Politically they (MCOPA) have to appeal. No way they want to lose control of "suitability" and "discretion" so they will drag this up to the USSC if necessary to keep it the way it is.

Decision gets stayed until final resolution at USSC (decision or denial of cert) or failure to appeal in time. This is a "long game", not something that will be resolved in less than a few years.

You guys already assume that common sense prevails ... Let's "win" the case first. There is still a long road ahead of us for this to happen, we'll deal with appealing later

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Len-2A Training]

You guys already assume that common sense prevails ... Let's "win" the case first. There is still a long road ahead of us for this to happen, we'll deal with appealing later

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

. . . just saying . . .

NO way that IF WE WIN, MCOPA will let that stand without fighting to their last breath.

 

[sbi]

. . . just saying . . .

NO way that IF WE WIN, MCOPA will let that stand without fighting to their last breath.

I agree with you. They will even appoint a new judge if they think their appeal is not gonna fly with the existing judge

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jar]

I agree with you. They will even appoint a new judge if they think their appeal is not gonna fly with the existing judge

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

The appeal would go to a 3 judge panel, and MCOPA has no influence over the federal court system.

I agree with everyone who says the district court decision will get appealed. The outcome of the 1st circuit decision will be more interesting. If we lose directly on the 2A question, our side will almost definitely appeal. If we win, it depends on a lot. Look at what's currently unfolding in Illinois for how complex it could get. Of course, if SCOTUS takes one of the pending cases from another circuit, that will stop pretty much everything until they decide it.

 

[Coyote33]

. . . just saying . . .

NO way that IF WE WIN, MCOPA will let that stand without fighting to their last breath.

Who would have "thunk it" way back when we were standing in Hudson, MA at the rally, that we would still be talking about and wishing for this 13+ (what year WAS that, anyhow?) years later?

 

[rommel]

I just read the amended complaint and the answers to the amended complaints. I know that MA has no rhyme or reason to many gun laws. I can not for the life of me come up with any possible reason, logic or rational thought on how the state would issue a LTC-A and put the restrictions of hunting or target. What is the theory behind giving a license to carry a loaded handgun in a concealed manner for the purpose of target or hunting. It seems to contradict the nature of the restriction. If the state is restricting the carry to hunting or target then why the allowance of a loaded conceal/open carry. What the state has done is effectively reduced the LTC-A to the legality of a FID card. There is no rational sense to the LTC-A holder nor the state to have loaded weapon/ concealed carry for the purpose of target or hunting. There would never be a need to carry a loaded weapon if the person was going target shooting and generally people do not hunt with concealed handguns. Given the state has acknowledged the right for the LTC-A holder to carry loaded and concealed it seems to me they are authorizing all lawful purposes by design of the license. Since the state has the option of issuing an FID card, but chose the LTC-A instead, then there inherently should be no restrictions. Stupid ****ing MA

 

[Hellbound]

Tried this awhile back, no luck, or contact from Comm2A, but I'll definitely go for it again!

 

[terraformer]

Tried this awhile back, no luck, or contact from Comm2A, but I'll definitely go for it again!

The case has already been filed. Just sit tight and let's see where this goes.

 

[terraformer]

FYI: I started a thread here (http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/comm2a/214847-davis-v-grimes.html) for the case that arose from the request made in this thread.

ETA: Can we lock and unsticky this thread please?

 

[perry1386]

Donation sent to Comm2a


(I haven't donated in awhile, this is good motivation)

 

[nin7474]

Just sent my info, thanks

 

[Johnnycakes]

No, don't lock and unsticky this thread... not enough people know about Davis v. Grimes to find that thread by itself. This thread title is MUCH more likely to attract readers.... and they should be directed to that case from posts such as yours.

 

[Volkl78]

We need more people like this willing to defend our rights here at home. Thankfully I dont have restrictions but imagine bringing your police cheif to court? You might end up with a few extra speeding tickets.

 

[wolfenkraft]

I've currently got T&H, and from what I understand people supposedly have tried suing my city and nothing changed.

 

[JonathonEmergency]

I really don't understand what will happen if this is successful. Will the restrictions that people already have be deemed null and void, or would they have to re apply, or wait for renewal?

 

[rsalan]

What happened to Worcester in Davis v Grimes?

 

[terraformer]

I really don't understand what will happen if this is successful. Will the restrictions that people already have be deemed null and void, or would they have to re apply, or wait for renewal?

TBD.

What happened to Worcester in Davis v Grimes?

They got dropped because they agreed to change their policies as a result of some cases brought against them, one of which was ours.

 

[rsalan]

TBD.



They got dropped because they agreed to change their policies as a result of some cases brought against them, one of which was ours.

Awesome! Thanks Comm2A for all the good work done. Donation on the way.

 

[Bearice_Puffalo]

TBD.
They got dropped because they agreed to change their policies as a result of some cases brought against them, one of which was ours.

Terraformer,

Just got my LTC-A with "sporting," restrictions (what defines sporting? target, hunting, hiking, outdoors etc?) after 9 month wait, is there any chance of getting the restrictions removed in New Bedford or is moving the best option at this point. Would legal action do anything at all?

 

[inerlogic]

Terraformer,

Just got my LTC-A with "sporting," restrictions (what defines sporting? target, hunting, hiking, outdoors etc?) after 9 month wait, is there any chance of getting the restrictions removed in New Bedford or is moving the best option at this point. Would legal action do anything at all?

yeh... across the river in Fairhaven, no restrictions..... our Mayor and Chief in N.B. think only criminals should be able to carry.....
what defines sporting?
it isn't defined anywhere in the M.G.L. call Provencher's office and ask him for a letter defining "sporting" as a restriction....

 

[Hellbound]

Still stuck with my restrictions as well, still have 3 years on my bid too..

 

[late08]

How is the potential new gun control legislation going to affect the Davis vs. Grimes case? Is it moot if the legislation passed?

 

[terraformer]

How is the potential new gun control legislation going to affect the Davis vs. Grimes case? Is it moot if the legislation passed?

No. Not much impact from the draft I have seen. Other things we were working on getting ready are a different story.

 

[late08]

No. Not much impact from the draft I have seen. Other things we were working on getting ready are a different story.

From what I gather from the new legislation, the LTC-A is all or nothing, so would Chiefs issuance of just an FID instead of an LTC be like a restriction so to speak? So this case would still apply?

I guess my concern from all this (among other things) is that we become like NJ. They hand out FID's, but forget an LTC.

 

[terraformer]

From what I gather from the new legislation, the LTC-A is all or nothing, so would Chiefs issuance of just an FID instead of an LTC be like a restriction so to speak? So this case would still apply?

I guess my concern from all this (among other things) is that we become like NJ. They hand out FID's, but forget an LTC.

You mean that the FID would be OK for outside the home? That is FAR from clear from that legislation. The legislation doesn't override anything in 269 § 10. And if is meant to have the FID allow outside the home, this case is still important.

 

[late08]

Sorry, what I meant was that FID would be for in the home and LTC for outside, BUT, with the new legislation would chiefs just issue FID's and call it a day if they dont want people carrying on an LTC?

Like would the new "restriction" be just not issuing LTC's anymore unless you are special.

You mean that the FID would be OK for outside the home? That is FAR from clear from that legislation. The legislation doesn't override anything in 269 § 10. And if is meant to have the FID allow outside the home, this case is still important.

 

[jar]

Sorry, what I meant was that FID would be for in the home and LTC for outside, BUT, with the new legislation would chiefs just issue FID's and call it a day if they dont want people carrying on an LTC?

Like would the new "restriction" be just not issuing LTC's anymore unless you are special.

Denying home possession of handguns to nearly everyone would hopefully a bridge to far even for the First Circuit. My understanding is that the new legislation directs EOPS to come up with uniform suitability standards, but it doesn't seem to address restrictions at all.

 

[late08]

Thanks for the info.

Let me ask something else, maybe I am reading it wrong.

So if this legislation makes just the FID and LTC-A, can you possess handguns with an FID? Or would it be the same as it is now, where you need an LTC to possess (and carry) handguns?

I guess that's the first question I should ask.

Denying home possession of handguns to nearly everyone would hopefully a bridge to far even for the First Circuit. My understanding is that the new legislation directs EOPS to come up with uniform suitability standards, but it doesn't seem to address restrictions at all.

 

[Len-2A Training]

FID would be low-cap long guns only from my reading the bill.

LTC-A would be anything legal to possess except full-auto.