Comm2A Challenges MA restrictions on LTCs (new carry case)

Knuckle Dragger · Apr 4, 2014

bigalf said:
The MA permit system is wack. Im a resident and have an unrestricted LTC permit. It all depends on your Chief. Can you imagine the outrage if only folks with a pro 2A Chief could get a permit. My friend and I were both in the same situation when we applied, same age, social status, no records, same safety course.l got my unrestricted LTC he got denied and a lower license to allow only range and hunting use. I am very glad to see the state finally getting challenged. Totally lopsided laws and vary from town to town.

Wack indeed.

The irony is that of all the may issue states, (NY, NJ, MD, CA, HI), Massachusetts erects the most barriers to even owing a firearm. However, once you can own a firearm, most people can pretty much carry it almost anywhere. Simple firearms possession requires MA residents to obtain a largely discretionary license from their local police chief. (There are 351 cities and towns BTW). However, by default, that license allows for the concealed carry of a firearm unless the chief restricts it. There are just over 300k active licenses in the state and over 90% of them are not restricted.

777GSOTB · Apr 5, 2014

Knuckle Dragger said:
True, but that was taken into account in this case. In the past the state has argued that there's no right to carry (a large capacity) firearm concealed and that if there is some right a plaintiff should have applied for a different license that would allow the open carry of a non-large capacity firearm. Both of the towns in question issue those licenses, but restrict the 'proper purposes' associated with them.

The arguments presented in this case only touch upon the discretion of the issuing authority. You're not getting it, if a license is required, they can do whatever the law allows them to do...Simply put, one does NOT have a RIGHT to a license, as legally defined, they are contradictions. And the lawyers failed to argue they want to ONLY open carry...with or without a license. It's a sunk case and is no better than the one the SCOTUS recently denied cert to....Kachalsky v. Cacase

And in all honesty, with the Embody v Cooper case sitting at their door, this Mass case is not going to matter. Embody v Cooper will define the right throughout the country as applied to exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights outside the home. With loaded open carry being the only mode of carry protected by the 2nd Amendment, the states that prohibit that better get used to it. What I think will happen is they will just start letting people carry concealed without a license. Lets hope.

press1280 · Apr 5, 2014

777GSOTB said:
The arguments presented in this case only touch upon the discretion of the issuing authority. You're not getting it, if a license is required, they can do whatever the law allows them to do...Simply put, one does NOT have a RIGHT to a license, as legally defined, they are contradictions. And the lawyers failed to argue they want to ONLY open carry...with or without a license. It's a sunk case and is no better than the one the SCOTUS recently denied cert to....Kachalsky v. Cacase

And in all honesty, with the Embody v Cooper case sitting at their door, this Mass case is not going to matter. Embody v Cooper will define the right throughout the country as applied to exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights outside the home. With loaded open carry being the only mode of carry protected by the 2nd Amendment, the states that prohibit that better get used to it. What I think will happen is they will just start letting people carry concealed without a license. Lets hope.

You MUST be Embody then

yellowfin · Apr 5, 2014

Knuckle Dragger said:
Wack indeed.

I irony is that of all the may issue states, (NY, NJ, MD, CA, HI), Massachusetts erects the most barriers to even owing a firearm. However, once you can own a firearm, most people can pretty much carry it almost anywhere. Simple firearms possession requires MA residents to obtain a largely discretionary license from their local police chief. (There are 351 cities and towns BTW). However, by default, that license allows for the concealed carry of a firearm unless the chief restricts it. There are just over 300k active licenses in the state and over 90% of them are not restricted.

And like NY and CA, you're more or less forced to choose between living somewhere you're able to have a license to carry and living where 70-80% of the population and jobs are.

777GSOTB · Apr 5, 2014

press1280 said:
You MUST be Embody then

Nope, but great response, you're a brilliant thinker...Did you ever read the Heller decision?...Prolly not,...anyway, here's what Scalia cited:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

That means open carry is the protected right under the 2nd Amendment, NOT licensed concealed carry. That's pretty easily understood from that reading. He didn't cite that case for nothing...Yet, the NRA, SAF, and Alan Gura continue to take up licensed concealed carry cases. All of which they have lost at the SCOTUS level to this point, by the way. It took a pro se litigant by the name of Embody to take up a proper case...That's pretty sad when you consider the kind of money that is being sent to these gun groups and they are acquiescing to the requirement of a license in the exercise of a fundamental right, without opposing it first...Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world. That position is completely self motivated with greed in mind and I hope you enjoy paying your Firearm Carry Insurance if Gura gets you your carry license. As for me, I'm going to cheer on the open carry case...I guess $1,000,000 a year Wayne or the Nuge should have had the balls to get it rolling...nope, so I guess we get Embody.

Campfire · Apr 5, 2014

Gura has repeatedly argued that there is a right to carry, but the manner (open or concealed) may be regulated (chosen) by the state. The cases taken up are discretionary license carry cases, not concealed carry cases per se, in my view.

777GSOTB · Apr 5, 2014

Campfire said:
Gura has repeatedly argued that there is a right to carry, but the manner (open or concealed) may be regulated (chosen) by the state. The cases taken up are discretionary license carry cases, not concealed carry cases per se, in my view.

First of all, he's lost every " discretionary license carry case " to this point at the SCOTUS level...Evan when it involved handgun carry as with the Kachalsky v. Cacase case. NY AJ argued that some rifles and shotgun could be openly carried so it wasn't a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home. Are you telling me there is no right to carry a firearm(handguns) that one has a right to inside the home, outside?...That would be a ridiculous proposition my friend, but they still didn't take this " discretionary license carry case ".

There is a serious problem with his reasoning. The fundamental right lies in open carry not concealed carry. If a state allows concealed carry only, they are still violating your right to open carry. Also, how does one carry a concealed rifle and shotgun? Answer that. I have posed that question many times without an answer. Are you telling me I don't have a right to carry rifles and shotguns with me? They're protected weapons aren't they? I'm pretty sure they are, and more so than the measly handgun. Simply put, Gura's position fails once you bring rifles and shotguns into the carry equation. Open carry has to be allowed for these types of firearms.

Here's another point, Vermont doesn't require any license at all to carry either openly or concealed. Tell me, under Alan Gura's reasoning, how someone from Vermont exercises their fundamental right to self defense while in California if they need a carry license? According to the 10th Circuit a state doesn't have to issue a license to a non-resident...Colorado case. Again, Gura's reasoning doesn't pass constitutional muster, as a Vermont resident will never make it across the US without having to get a license/permit from numerous states, if in fact they allow non-residents to get one at all, just to exercise a fundamental right. This is why I believe they will take the Embody case. It's a clear and concise open carry case and perfect for review. I pretty much think we are screwed if they don't take the case. A right conditioned upon a license is no right at all. Most people don't understand the contractual nature of a license...Oh, well, I'm not leaving Az anytime soon if it comes to that.

Kharn · Apr 6, 2014

The Supreme Court hasn't taken a discretionary licensing carry case yet, so Mr Gura has never lost there.
And Drake, Peruta, Comm2A, etc, are not asking for reciprocity, they're looking solely at home-state issuance.

Mr Embody should count it as a miracle if the Supreme Court even requests a brief from the respondent.

press1280 · Apr 6, 2014

777GSOTB said:
First of all, he's lost every " discretionary license carry case " to this point at the SCOTUS level...Evan when it involved handgun carry as with the Kachalsky v. Cacase case. NY AJ argued that some rifles and shotgun could be openly carried so it wasn't a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home. Are you telling me there is no right to carry a firearm(handguns) that one has a right to inside the home, outside?...That would be a ridiculous proposition my friend, but they still didn't take this " discretionary license carry case ".

There is a serious problem with his reasoning. The fundamental right lies in open carry not concealed carry. If a state allows concealed carry only, they are still violating your right to open carry. Also, how does one carry a concealed rifle and shotgun? Answer that. I have posed that question many times without an answer. Are you telling me I don't have a right to carry rifles and shotguns with me? They're protected weapons aren't they? I'm pretty sure they are, and more so than the measly handgun. Simply put, Gura's position fails once you bring rifles and shotguns into the carry equation. Open carry has to be allowed for these types of firearms.

Here's another point, Vermont doesn't require any license at all to carry either openly or concealed. Tell me, under Alan Gura's reasoning, how someone from Vermont exercises their fundamental right to self defense while in California if they need a carry license? According to the 10th Circuit a state doesn't have to issue a license to a non-resident...Colorado case. Again, Gura's reasoning doesn't pass constitutional muster, as a Vermont resident will never make it across the US without having to get a license/permit from numerous states, if in fact they allow non-residents to get one at all, just to exercise a fundamental right. This is why I believe they will take the Embody case. It's a clear and concise open carry case and perfect for review. I pretty much think we are screwed if they don't take the case. A right conditioned upon a license is no right at all. Most people don't understand the contractual nature of a license...Oh, well, I'm not leaving Az anytime soon if it comes to that.

Gura has 2 SCOTUS wins, and has 2 Circuit wins (Richards,Moore) along with several District Court wins (Bateman, Woollard). Embody lost at every turn.
Even assuming SCOTUS wants an Open Carry case, there are much better cases out there than this one.

777GSOTB · Apr 6, 2014

Kharn said:
The Supreme Court hasn't taken a discretionary licensing carry case yet, so Mr Gura has never lost there.
And Drake, Peruta, Comm2A, etc, are not asking for reciprocity, they're looking solely at home-state issuance.

Mr Embody should count it as a miracle if the Supreme Court even requests a brief from the respondent.

He's made it further than ANY of Gura's cases. Embody made it past a first conference. They could have denied cert right then and there, but didn't. Respondent waived his right to respond why would they request one?

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~
Jan 27 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 3, 2014)

Feb 6 2014 Waiver of right of respondent Robert E. Cooper, Jr. to respond filed.

777GSOTB · Apr 6, 2014

press1280 said:
Gura has 2 SCOTUS wins, and has 2 Circuit wins (Richards,Moore) along with several District Court wins (Bateman, Woollard). Embody lost at every turn.
Even assuming SCOTUS wants an Open Carry case, there are much better cases out there than this one.

We lost all NFA weapons with his win on that one....Because he didn't want to argue any of that stuff. What do you have say about that?

He also makes $400 an hour,...Embody is not a lawyer and doing his case pro se, he gets paid zero for his efforts and you're going to compare them??

The McDonald case was a given nothing special there.

So,...what are you trying to say? Rosa Parks " lost at every turn " too...Wow how about that, won at the SCOTUS.

Which one and why no specifics? Prolly just guessing...Nichols v Brown open carry case out of California?...Maybe, but that's sitting at the 9th Circuit and he hasn't had oral argument yet. Did you even know that?

It has to be an open carry case,...Why do you suggest, " Evan assuming SCOTUS wants an open carry case ". Here's the answer: YOU JUST DON'T GET IT....I'll cite this case AGAIN. You don't pay attention very well.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.."

What this cited case means: Don't bring a concealed carry case to us as you will not have standing for review as this point is already settled.

Kharn · Apr 6, 2014

777GSOTB said:
He's made it further than ANY of Gura's cases. Embody made it past a first conference. They could have denied cert right then and there, but didn't. Respondent waived his right to respond why would they request one?

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~
Jan 27 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 3, 2014)

Feb 6 2014 Waiver of right of respondent Robert E. Cooper, Jr. to respond filed.

You mean the conference where they decided Embody isn't a pauper? The docket follows the standard chain of events for in forma pauperis, the Court decided he wasn't a pauper so they didn't read his petition and gave him time to submit the petition under the rules for paid cases (number of briefs, formatting, fee, etc that are all excused for paupers).

The Court will request a brief from a respondent if one of the Justices is interested in the other side of the case. Waiving your response is basically telling the court "This guy's case sucks, you don't even need me to tell you why it sucks, because it is obvious from his petition," so if a Justice decides that might not be the case, they'll have the clerk call for a response. States and government bodies waive a lot because writing a cert response is a lot of work, and most cases brought against them are junk so they wait until the SC decides it might be a worthwhile case.

Knuckle Dragger · Apr 7, 2014

777GSOTB said:
The arguments presented in this case only touch upon the discretion of the issuing authority. You're not getting it, if a license is required, they can do whatever the law allows them to do...Simply put, one does NOT have a RIGHT to a license, as legally defined, they are contradictions. And the lawyers failed to argue they want to ONLY open carry...with or without a license. It's a sunk case and is no better than the one the SCOTUS recently denied cert to....Kachalsky v. Cacase

And in all honesty, with the Embody v Cooper case sitting at their door, this Mass case is not going to matter. Embody v Cooper will define the right throughout the country as applied to exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights outside the home. With loaded open carry being the only mode of carry protected by the 2nd Amendment, the states that prohibit that better get used to it. What I think will happen is they will just start letting people carry concealed without a license. Lets hope.

A couple of corrections.

For the time being at least, courts will uphold the constitutionality of licensing if licensing is used to suppress the exercise of the right. MA licensing may be shown to fall into this category at some point. Something like the IL FOID card would probably easily pass the constitutional test.

Open carry is not an issue in this case. The plaintiffs were all selected because they were denied the ability to even open carry. That was intentional as the MA AG has a history of playing the various licenses off each other.

There's no comparison between this case and Embody. Davis was conceived as a very specific-to-MA case that would not have SCOTUS potential. Granting cert in Embody would be unprecedented. It's a pro se case and an opposition brief has not been requested or filed. It's dark horse in a race that's made up of statistical dark horses.

press1280 · Apr 7, 2014

777GSOTB said:
He's made it further than ANY of Gura's cases. Embody made it past a first conference. They could have denied cert right then and there, but didn't. Respondent waived his right to respond why would they request one?

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~
Jan 27 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 3, 2014)

Feb 6 2014 Waiver of right of respondent Robert E. Cooper, Jr. to respond filed.

They denied his motion, so now it shows they want his case!

SilverBulletZ06 · Apr 8, 2014

press1280 said:
They denied his motion, so now it shows they want his case!

They denied his motion based on payment, not on merits, to be honest.

press1280 · Apr 8, 2014

SilverBulletZ06 said:
They denied his motion based on payment, not on merits, to be honest.

My point exactly. He didn't "get further" than Gura.

press1280 · May 10, 2014

Both plaintiffs and defendants say no need to send to Mass Supreme Judicial Court. That's good news, we really need this case moving forward since we've had many go down in flames and SCOTUS still won't bite.

Knuckle Dragger · May 10, 2014

press1280 said:
Both plaintiffs and defendants say no need to send to Mass Supreme Judicial Court. That's good news, we really need this case moving forward since we've had many go down in flames and SCOTUS tstill won't bite.

The Commonwealth still needs to contribute their two cents and the judge will be very deferential to them. However, it would be a surprise if the state concludes that a question should be certified to the SJC.

press1280 · May 11, 2014

Knuckle Dragger said:
The Commonwealth still needs to contribute their two cents and the judge will be very deferential to them. However, it would be a surprise if the state concludes that a question should be certified to the SJC.

Good catch. Mass' reply is due this week.
This case is a lot like the ones in CA. Many Mass towns do issue LTC A (full carry) to regular folk, and Comm2A is challenging only the chiefs issuance policy, not that of state law.
Mass IS intervening in this case and is trying to take the hard line that the 2A is restricted to the home.

press1280 · May 11, 2014

Memorandum filed by Commonwealth of Massachussetts last year, taking the hardline stance:

Comm2A Challenges MA restrictions on LTCs (new carry case)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics