Comm2A Challenges Firearms Prohibition for Lawfully Admitted Aliens

Congratulations Comm2a and all involved,fantastic effort, here's hoping I won't have to make the trip to Chelsea this year for my FID
 
Rob Boudrie said:
To the best of my understanding, this is the first time a MA gun law has been specifically struck down by the federal court system. If there is an earlier example, please correct me.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. One more reason for another celebratory beverage of my choice!

Rob Boudrie said:
In this case, I believe it was use of in-house counsel on salary as a MA employee, rather than hiring outside counsel. Towns are more likely to use outside "paid by the hour" legal staff.
Click to expand...
This isn't the only financial hit that the state and towns face. Although the state's counsel may be in house, that doesn't help them when it comes to paying OUR counsel. Remember, these are all 1983 actions. 1983 is specifically set up so that if they government violates your rights, they must the costs associated with having those violations corrected. Attorney Joe Hickson is finalizing his invoice right now and we'll be petitioning the court for recovery.

June4th said:
The protection of 4th-8th amendments probably is taken for granted for legal residents (well, illegals get better, so what the heck), another precedent to strengthen the protection only makes it better.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. This was one of the most interesting aspects of oral arguments - which I'll now share.

In arguing their MTD the state tenaciously clung to their "'the people' = citizen" theory, but continually evaded the judge's attempt to call them out on the 'why' question: what is the operational or functional reason for treating non-citizens differently than citizen?

Finally, the judge just gave up and asked the AAG "Is it the Commonwealth position that aliens can't be trusted with guns?". To which the AAG responded with a sheepish 'yes'.

Not content with that answer the judge continued by asking the AAG if he realize that the Commonwealth's interpretation of "the people" would also imply that aliens have no 4th Amendment protections either. The state acknowledge that this was the logical conclusion of their argument.

We all know that the state is NEVER going to conduct warrant-less searches of aliens and then claim in court that they don't have 4th amendment protections.
 
This isn't the only financial hit that the state and towns face. Although the state's counsel may be in house, that doesn't help them when it comes to paying OUR counsel. Remember, these are all 1983 actions. 1983 is specifically set up so that if they government violates your rights, they must the costs associated with having those violations corrected. Attorney Joe Hickson is finalizing his invoice right now and we'll be petitioning the court for recovery.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, this case will cause defendants in Comm2A suits to consider that there are real risks to violating constitutional rights.

I am gratified by the amount of contacts Comm2A is receiving from permanent resident aliens who had given up on ever obtaining an LTC. Comm2A will be following the situation closely to make sure that towns and the state comply with the decision, and that permanent resident aliens are treated no differently than citizens in the licensing process.
 
I hope that Joe is able to buy a huge house for cash (if he wants) from the proceeds of the state's stupidity.

On the other hand, I envision another court action coming up . . . as I can see aliens going to their PD only to get turned away with "go to the state" and then being told by CJIS to "go to your town", rinse and repeat.

This was a tactic style that Boston PD used for years . . . LTC applicants were told "not here" at local BPD police stations, they had to go to Berkeley St HQ. When they got there they were told that they could only get an application from a certain officer . . . who was conveniently never available and round and round they went. [BPD is a lot better these days.]
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
I think you're right. One more reason for another celebratory beverage of my choice!

This isn't the only financial hit that the state and towns face. Although the state's counsel may be in house, that doesn't help them when it comes to paying OUR counsel. Remember, these are all 1983 actions. 1983 is specifically set up so that if they government violates your rights, they must the costs associated with having those violations corrected. Attorney Joe Hickson is finalizing his invoice right now and we'll be petitioning the court for recovery.
Click to expand...


That right there is a thing of beauty!!!!

[cheers]
 
LenS said:
On the other hand, I envision another court action coming up . . . as I can see aliens going to their PD only to get turned away with "go to the state" and then being told by CJIS to "go to your town", rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
We'll be ready for that as long as aliens are willing to work through us.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Yes and no. This was one of the most interesting aspects of oral arguments - which I'll now share.

In arguing their MTD the state tenaciously clung to their "'the people' = citizen" theory, but continually evaded the judge's attempt to call them out on the 'why' question: what is the operational or functional reason for treating non-citizens differently than citizen?

Finally, the judge just gave up and asked the AAG "Is it the Commonwealth position that aliens can't be trusted with guns?". To which the AAG responded with a sheepish 'yes'.

Not content with that answer the judge continued by asking the AAG if he realize that the Commonwealth's interpretation of "the people" would also imply that aliens have no 4th Amendment protections either. The state acknowledge that this was the logical conclusion of their argument.

We all know that the state is NEVER going to conduct warrant-less searches of aliens and then claim in court that they don't have 4th amendment protections.
Click to expand...

BUT can the Commonwealth be TRUSTED to keep their dirty paws from the 4th as they make a mess with the 2nd?

I forwarded this news to the local Chinese community, where many are still resident aliens. My comment was that even non-gunowners ought to cheer for the news because a leak of legal protection has been stopped.
 
June4th said:
BUT can the Commonwealth be TRUSTED to keep their dirty paws from the 4th as they make a mess with the 2nd?

I forwarded this news to the local Chinese community, where many are still resident aliens. My comment was that even non-gunowners ought to cheer for the news because a leak of legal protection has been stopped.
Click to expand...

+1 thank you for doing that. Irrespective of the gun angle in this case it's a very important question of rights and their protection. The state demonstrate enormous hypocrisy by rolling out the welcoming new immigrants as valued members of the community and then declaring in open court that they can't be trusted with guns. Of course one could argue their being consistent in that they don't trust anyone with guns.
 
This begs the question.... So what happens when the decision stands? Is the state going to be FORCED to modify MGL to allow issuance?

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
So what happens if the decision stands? Is the state going to be FORCED to modify MGL to allow issuance?

-Mike
Click to expand...

The state doesn't need to change the law in order for it to be in effect. There are probably MGLs sitting around that are unenforceable all over the MGLs. Now we wait for them to either appeal or assent (more accurately acquiesce...).
 
terraformer said:
The state doesn't need to change the law in order for it to be in effect. There are probably MGLs sitting around that are unenforceable all over the MGLs. Now we wait for them to either appeal or assent (more accurately acquiesce...).
Click to expand...

So do you think EOPS will release some kind of edict, or is it going to be up to the PDs to simply allow resident aliens to apply? I imagine there is going to be some teeth-gnashing until this gets straightened out. There also is the weird issue of "why were aliens forced to apply through the state?" and not the town they reside in, in MA.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
So do you think EOPS will release some kind of edict, or is it going to be up to the PDs to simply allow resident aliens to apply? I imagine there is going to be some teeth-gnashing until this gets straightened out. There also is the weird issue of "why were aliens forced to apply through the state?" and not the town they reside in, in MA.

-Mike
Click to expand...

That weird issue is covered by the order. The judge was clear and encompassing in his indictment of "the MA firearms licensing scheme" as applied to the plaintiffs. Aliens are not to be treated any differently under the MA firearms licensing scheme. As for the rest, only time will tell. I would hope EOPSS would issue some form of notice publicly but they could do so privately to PDs only. These first 30 days after a win (ooh, I am so giddy over that statement...[grin]) are a little fluid. In a week or two things will settle down and more will become clear. I know it sucks, but patience is a required trait in dealing with the courts.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
In this case, I believe it was use of in-house counsel on salary as a MA employee, rather than hiring outside counsel. Towns are more likely to use outside "paid by the hour" legal staff.
...
I suspect it is rare for any government department, individual or corporation to ask "Do I really have a legitimate defense?" when talking to their counsel, but probably simply says "defend this".
Click to expand...

Wasn't it the Northborough chief of police who was one of the defendants here? Do they have to pay for this case? If so, how much? Who gets to break the news to the taxpayers? Has anyone written to the papers yet?
 
Is the state going to be FORCED to modify MGL to allow issuance?
Click to expand...

The state may very well choose to modify MGL to bring it in compliance with the law, however, it is not uncommon for laws that are ruled unconstitutional to remain on the books, but unenforceable.

A great example is the San Francisco handgun ban. This was ruled illegal by the courts and therefore not enforce, however, the city of SF chose to leave the laws on this book (and I believe the law remains on the books to this day). There is only great motivation to remove an overturned law when it proves embarrassing.
 
terraformer said:
That weird issue is covered by the order. The judge was clear and encompassing in his indictment of "the MA firearms licensing scheme" as applied to the plaintiffs. Aliens are not to be treated any differently under the MA firearms licensing scheme. As for the rest, only time will tell. I would hope EOPSS would issue some form of notice publicly but they could do so privately to PDs only. These first 30 days after a win (ooh, I am so giddy over that statement...[grin]) are a little fluid. In a week or two things will settle down and more will become clear. I know it sucks, but patience is a required trait in dealing with the courts.
Click to expand...

Just to make clear. We expect that going forward aliens will be licensed by local licensing authorities in the SAME way citizens are. Aliens continue to be a 'suspect class' and treating them ANY differently with respect to licensing will invite equal protection scrutiny.

We're asking aliens to NOT apply right away and to contact us at Comm2A. The state and PDs need a fair opportunity to get the word out and we want to be on top of anything that indicates that licensing authorities are not complying with the court's ruling. There are A LOT of people from many different towns affected by this ruling. I don't expect it will go smoothly in every case.
 
Still haven't finished reading the ruling, still have 6 pages to go . . .

Will this allow aliens with a LTC to purchase ammo/guns in MA, or will that restriction still be allowed to exist (if the ruling didn't address it specifically)?
 
LenS said:
Still haven't finished reading the ruling, still have 6 pages to go . . .

Will this allow aliens with a LTC to purchase ammo/guns in MA, or will that restriction still be allowed to exist (if the ruling didn't address it specifically)?
Click to expand...

Our complaint addressed it and the ruling is pretty clear as to what should happen. Permanent resident aliens should not be treated differently than citizens.
 
terraformer said:
Our complaint addressed it and the ruling is pretty clear as to what should happen. Permanent resident aliens should not be treated differently than citizens.
Click to expand...

I saw that, but don't know if it is narrowly interpreted as "licensing" or more broadly to include buying as well. I'm pretty sure I know how EOPS will spin it, whenever they decide to inform their minions about the ruling and proper procedure to abide by it.
 
LenS said:
I saw that, but don't know if it is narrowly interpreted as "licensing" or more broadly to include buying as well. I'm pretty sure I know how EOPS will spin it, whenever they decide to inform their minions about the ruling and proper procedure to abide by it.
Click to expand...

We specifically challenged §131 and this is what §131 says:

Section 131. All licenses to carry firearms shall be designated Class A or Class B, and the issuance and possession of any such license shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper. A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Comm2A
Replies
3
Views
989
yogi
yogi
Need an experienced ethical Defense attorney for 2nd opinion
Replies
22
Views
3K
strangenh
strangenh
Comm2A and Black Guns Matter in MA week of 12/10/18
Replies
12
Views
2K
CatSnoutSoup
CatSnoutSoup
  • Sticky
Comm2A Monthly Donations - Important Notice
Replies
28
Views
4K
Comm2A
Comm2A
Would some from Comm2A BC ME ASAP
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rat187
Rat187
Back
Top Bottom