SAF/Gura - Hightower v. Boston Concealed Carry

[SpringChicken]

Pre-ban > 10 rds is okay with an LTC/A. Anything else, get an attorney, or move to NH.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Oh, and this is the tread that I'm basing my assumption off of...

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/157704-MA-Assault-Weapons-Ban-quot-AWB-quot-FAQ

That said, I plan I hiring an attorney if we end up living in Mass. for any reason.

God their laws scare me.

Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are okay provided: You have a LTC/A or LTC/B AND the magazines are pre-ban.

* Post-ban magazines - illegal for everyone (except cops in their official capacity)
* Pre-ban magazines - felony for anyone without a LTC/A or LTC/B

This gets a little more interesting in that the state has effectively separated "large capacity" weapons and magazines into something that's particularly dangerous on the order of machine guns rather than being something in "common use". Our courts have ruled that the licensing grace period that applies to new residents does not apply to "large capacity" guns and magazines. There's a similar difference with respect expired licenses. After a grace period it's a civil offense normally, but a criminal office if you have "large capacity" items.

 

[GBMaryland]

Ok,

So, what happens when you move to Mass and bring a whole bunch of pre-ban AR-15s with you? Also, how do you deal with something like an AR-10? I guess in the later you need to weld the break on? Lastly, how do you get your pre-ban large cap mags into the State if you are moving there?

I own so many 10 round mags that it's almost a moot point, but I also have a large number of preban mag... that go with my Colt HBAR Pre-Ban rifles.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Ok,

So, what happens when you move to Mass and bring a whole bunch of pre-ban AR-15s with you? Also, how do you deal with something like an AR-10? I guess in the later you need to weld the break on? Lastly, how do you get your pre-ban large cap mags into the State if you are moving there?

I own so many 10 round mags that it's almost a moot point, but I also have a large number of preban mag... that go with my Colt HBAR Pre-Ban rifles.

Gun owners moving to MA have 60 days to get a license, although it's not like anyone is tracking you down. If you read a recent court ruling, that 60 days doesn't apply to large capacity items, so technically you'd have to store them out of state until you get a license.

Non-flash suppressor muzzle devices need to be welded on. Some at the state have voice the opinion that once a rifle is shipped in an "assault configuration" it can be legitimized by changing it's features. There's no support for this in the statute or in case law.

 

[Al Norris]

The decision is in. Not good. No remand (but I've barely read anything yet).

 

[Al's Snackbar]

The decision is in. Not good. No remand (but I've barely read anything yet).

Lousy Petitioner. Back to the drawing board.

 

[SilverBulletZ06]

Lousy Petitioner. Back to the drawing board.

Lousy Judge.

Locked box = Carry
Wear at home = Carry

Answer to full carry is going to be no = didn't avail themselves of all options.

 

[MJD438]

From what I could read before my conference call, CA1 stated that SCOTUS only meant for Heller to apply exclusively in the home, so the facial challenges fail.

 

[press1280]

From what I could read before my conference call, CA1 stated that SCOTUS only meant for Heller to apply exclusively in the home, so the facial challenges fail.

That's how I read it. I thought LTC B was just for carrying at home, business,exc., and not public correct?
The court seemed intent on this being all about concealed weapons but I'm sure Gura's take on this is that either open or concealed will satisfy the 2A. Maybe the court got some talking points from the Bradys on this.
No matter, the decision at least is appealable, and now a win at another CCA will complete the split to all but ensure a trip to SCOTUS.

 

[krucam]

That's how I read it. I thought LTC B was just for carrying at home, business,exc., and not public correct?
The court seemed intent on this being all about concealed weapons but I'm sure Gura's take on this is that either open or concealed will satisfy the 2A. Maybe the court got some talking points from the Bradys on this.
No matter, the decision at least is appealable, and now a win at another CCA will complete the split to all but ensure a trip to SCOTUS.

Yup...one half of our banana split has been delivered, this one all but cements the "In the home" being addressed and hopefully buried at One First. Come on Peterson, Moore, Sheppard...

After thought...will SAF/Gura petition this one?? This case does have some messy loose ends. A presumed loss from one of the CA9 cases may be a cleaner case for presentment.

 

[AliasNeo07]

That's how I read it. I thought LTC B was just for carrying at home, business,exc., and not public correct?

Without going through all the pages...you need a permit to carry a gun in your own home or business in Mass?

No matter, the decision at least is appealable, and now a win at another CCA will complete the split to all but ensure a trip to SCOTUS.

Which we're sure we want?

 

[esqappellate]

Yup...one half of our banana split has been delivered, this one all but cements the "In the home" being addressed and hopefully buried at One First. Come on Peterson, Moore, Sheppard...

After thought...will SAF/Gura petition this one?? This case does have some messy loose ends. A presumed loss from one of the CA9 cases may be a cleaner case for presentment.

This is not as bad as it looks. Facial challenge failed under Salerno because her as applied challenge failed. Her as applied challenge failed because of the alleged falsehood on the application was a valid reason under the 2A for denial (or revocation) of the license. That holding is unassailable -- it you lie on your application for a CCW permit the state can deny the permit. Duh. The Court, while saying that the home is at the core, did not rule that the 2A did not apply outside the home, only that it could be regulated more. That is probably correct too. The case is easily distinguishable from Woollard. In hindsight, it was a tough case. None of the court's holdings will operate to preclude a win in Woollard. My guess is that Gura will not seek cert. in this one. I would not. Woollard is our cert case. Or Moore if we lose (but I don't think we will lose Moore)

 

[Al Norris]

Having just returned home from work and having just skimmed the opinion, I have to say that the Judges ruled about what I thought they would.

This case was a long shot, from when Alan Gura took it over, and I think everyone really felt that way (if we are to be honest) when it first surfaced. Nor do I think this is the case that we would want to pursue any further. Take the loss, and let one of the other cases be our circuit-split case.

Consider that if Moore/Shepard and/or Woollard go the way we would like (and think), then the State is likely to appeal and that sort of appeal would be more likely to get a grant of cert.

I still don't think Peterson will do more than get remanded. Should Gray actually get a good opinion here, I don't think CO will appeal it.

 

[esqappellate]

Having just returned home from work and having just skimmed the opinion, I have to say that the Judges ruled about what I thought they would.

This case was a long shot, from when Alan Gura took it over, and I think everyone really felt that way (if we are to be honest) when it first surfaced. Nor do I think this is the case that we would want to pursue any further. Take the loss, and let one of the other cases be our circuit-split case.

Consider that if Moore/Shepard and/or Woollard go the way we would like (and think), then the State is likely to appeal and that sort of appeal would be more likely to get a grant of cert.

I still don't think Peterson will do more than get remanded. Should Gray actually get a good opinion here, I don't think CO will appeal it.

i agree on all these points

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Exactly what I was thinking when I opened up this thread again. I don't think it's any accident that even when Alan Gura loses, it's usually no worse than a tossup. I can't think of any case of his where permanent ground was lost for the second amendment.

 

[press1280]

Curious why SAF took this case, or didn't add in an everyday Joe denied a permit for lack of cause? Their other clients' cases are certainly much more straightforward than this one.
I think they have to appeal this one, to not do so would be letting their client down. However, (and IANAL BTW) I'm sure Gura can get the issue narrowed to in/out of the home. There's also a possibility of having Moore/Shepherd get heard at SCOTUS and Hightower getting remanded based of Moore/Shepherd. I believe they'll have 90 days to decide whether to appeal or not.

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

Isn't it the client's call whether to appeal? I realize that Mr Gura may decline to represent her, but it is up to her.

 

[Al's Snackbar]

This is not as bad as it looks. Facial challenge failed under Salerno because her as applied challenge failed. Her as applied challenge failed because of the alleged falsehood on the application was a valid reason under the 2A for denial (or revocation) of the license. That holding is unassailable -- it you lie on your application for a CCW permit the state can deny the permit.

That's exactly my point. Lousy Plaintiff. I tell you, there is a reason why I never lost a case in my 12 years in practice. Pick the fight to fight, and if you have a lousy case settle as quickly as possible or don't take case. Period.

 

[esqappellate]

That's exactly my point. Lousy Plaintiff. I tell you, there is a reason why I never lost a case in my 12 years in practice. Pick the fight to fight, and if you have a lousy case settle as quickly as possible or don't take case. Period.

heck i only win 90% of my cases but then i've been doing this longer (37 years) and i don't get to pick my cases

 

[press1280]

This is not as bad as it looks. Facial challenge failed under Salerno because her as applied challenge failed. Her as applied challenge failed because of the alleged falsehood on the application was a valid reason under the 2A for denial (or revocation) of the license. That holding is unassailable -- it you lie on your application for a CCW permit the state can deny the permit. Duh. The Court, while saying that the home is at the core, did not rule that the 2A did not apply outside the home, only that it could be regulated more. That is probably correct too. The case is easily distinguishable from Woollard. In hindsight, it was a tough case. None of the court's holdings will operate to preclude a win in Woollard. My guess is that Gura will not seek cert. in this one. I would not. Woollard is our cert case. Or Moore if we lose (but I don't think we will lose Moore)

After closer reading, I see what you're saying, however, I'm sure this will get cited as CA1 holding,"2A doesn't apply outside the home or encompass hi-cap mags." This case also cites Wilkinson in Masciandaro in that the courts ought to NOT make any judgement on the 2A outside the home. We now have 2 circuit courts refusing to make a call on the 2A outside the home. Shouldn't something like this help get certiorari?