• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Comm2A Challenges Prohibition Based on Non-Violent Misdemeanor Convictions

Comm2A

Comm2A

Director Comm2a
Dealer
NES Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
168
Likes
1,256
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Morin v. Leahy.

Yesterday we filed a suit challenging the state's prohibition on anyone convicted of any weapon or ammunition related offense that carries the possibility of incarceration.

In this case the plaintiff plead guilty to two misdemeanors counts punishable by no more than 180 days. He received a suspended sentence, probation and community service. Other than one minor mistake that put no one at risk, he has no criminal record. Like many other similarly situated individuals, he is not in any way dangerous and cannot in no way be considered a public safety risk. Yet, in Massachusetts, he is a prohibited person.
 
This is a really important issue and one that's not limited to Massachusetts. There have been several of these 'misdefelony' cases filed around the country by Alan Gura - Schrader, Binderup and others.

There's no reason that people who are clearly not dangerous should be separated from a fundamental right.
 
Comm2A said:
Morin v. Leahy.

Yesterday we filed a suit challenging the state's prohibition on anyone convicted of any weapon or ammunition related offense that carries the possibility of incarceration.

In this case the plaintiff plead guilty to two misdemeanors counts punishable by no more than 180 days. He received a suspended sentence, probation and community service. Other than one minor mistake that put no one at risk, he has no criminal record. Like many other similarly situated individuals, he is not in any way dangerous and cannot in no way be considered a public safety risk. Yet, in Massachusetts, he is a prohibited person.
Click to expand...
I know a guy who was denied a purchase permit because someone with the same name, in a state he never lived in, was accused of a felony but never prosecuted or convicted. The thing is he has a common name. Irony alert. His previous state had no problem granting a conceal carry permit. He is moving back to his former state next month where the have constitutional carry. open or concealed. But a permit allows i one to carry concealed in more places.
 
Attention all Northborough residents. Not one, but three private attorneys have came in on behalf of the town. Remember what happened with Natick where the lawyers racked up a big bill on BS defenses to liability the town didn't have? Well, the Morin case is a challenge to a statutory bar, similar to Wesson v Woods. If the town files a MTD, they will be not only costing the town money for their time, but they will end up paying our lawyers more when we win. Just saying...
 
Do you mean private attorneys are trying to profit off of taxpayers because they know they will get paid regardless I what they actually do?
 
Remember what happened with Natick where the lawyers racked up a big bill on BS defenses to liability the town didn't have?
Click to expand...
The problem is that when towns get sued, the instinct is to tell town counsel to "handle it". Nobody ever has the conversation "should we defend this case" or "do we really want to spend $14,000 to try to prevent someone who smoked the heathen devil weed decades ago from owning a gun?". Attorneys go into autopilot and start ringing up billables.

Natick could have filed no response or, if they wanted to look competent, simply filed a response "We are precluded by state law from issuing an LTC to this individual, but offer no defenses to the arguments raised". Probably would have cost about $1000 in legal fees, maybe $2000, but not much more.
 
Last edited:
That's what Hingham did in Richmond. It took Jeff less than a day to respond to the MTD in that case. It was weak, but ticked off the boxes. Let's see what this law firm does in this case.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The problem is that when towns get sued, the instinct is to tell town counsel to "handle it". Nobody ever has the conversation "should we defend this case" or "do we really want to spend $14,000 to try to prevent someone who smoked the heathen devil week decades ago from owning a gun?". Attorneys go into autopilot and start ringing up billables.

Natick could have filed no response or, if they wanted to look competent, simply filed a response "We are precluded by state law from issuing an LTC to this individual, but offer no defenses to the arguments raised". Probably would have cost about $1000 in legal fees, maybe $2000, but not much more.
Click to expand...

I know of a town where the chief got sued and the selectmen (who authorize payment of legal bills) were never even told about the lawsuit!
 
I do enjoy reading through these arguments, actually for curiosity and to witness the lunacy first-hand.

What struck me as particularly was this portion:

... (“Wenow join our sister circuits in holding that application of the felon-in-possession prohibition toallegedly non-violent felons like Pruess does not violate the Second Amendment.”); UnitedStates v. Torres–Rosario, 658 F.3d 110, 113 (1st Cir. 2011) (rejecting challenge to § 922(g)(1)by defendant with “no prior convictions for any violent felony”); United States v. Barton, 633F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011)...
Click to expand...

I took a few minutes to skim through the appellate decision in "Barton" and the decision not only does not appear to support the Commonwealth's position, it appears to support the Comm 2A position. The decision goes so far as to support the notion that convicted felons who can present evidence that they pose no greater threat to public safety than the law abiding, should not be subject to lifetime dispossession under the statute.

Barton's as applied challenge was denied because he made no attempt to present any such evidence.
 
The ruled against Mr. Morin. Options are being evaluated.

Order

Alfred Morin (Plaintiff) brings a Second Amendment challenge to a Massachusetts statute
that prevents the issuance of a Class A license to carry firearms to individuals who have been
convicted in another state of certain firearms-related offenses. The Commonwealth has intervened
as a Defendant, and all parties move for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, I
find that the statute is constitutional. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 21) is
denied. The Commonwealth’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 24) is granted.
Leahy’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 29) is granted.
Click to expand...
 
The ruling was based on an absurd interpretation of the FID law. One way or another, this BS about FIDs needs to be dealt with if the AGs office will continue to cite bad case law dicta but not have the balls to come out and say it because they know that what they are citing is bad law.
 

Similar threads

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Comm2A
Replies
3
Views
878
yogi
yogi
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
Comm2A Challenges Burden Shifting
Replies
27
Views
11K
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom