Comm2A joins with other groups to challenge semi-auto ban

[Comm2A]

Breaking News:

Comm2A joins with Gun Owners Action League, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, The National Rifle Association of America, and Gun Owners of America to file a challenge to the laws prohibiting 18-20 year olds from possession, purchase, and carry of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and all handguns.

Escher v. Mason - Commonwealth Second Amendment

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint against the Massachusetts prohibition on 18-20 year olds possessing, purchasing, and carrying semi-automatic firearms. United States District Court — District of Massachusetts (Boston) Filed: February 14th, 2025 Status: Initial Filing At issue is...

comm2a.org

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Complaint against the Massachusetts prohibition on 18-20 year olds possessing, purchasing, and carrying semi-automatic firearms.

United States District Court — District of Massachusetts (Boston)​

Filed: February 14th, 2025​

At issue is whether or not lawful residents aged 18-20 years old constitute part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

On July 25, 2024, Governor Maura Healey signed an omnibus bill, H.B. 4885, altering in several respects existing Massachusetts laws pertaining to firearms. H.B. 4885 enacts special restrictions on 18-to-20 year-old adults, entirely banning them from acquiring, possessing, or carrying any semiautomatic firearm of any type or any handgun.

Historically, 18-year-olds always have been understood to be part of “the people” who have the right to carry and own firearms. On May 8, 1792, mere months after the Second Amendment was ratified, Congress mandated that “every free able-bodied white male citizen … who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Militia Act of 1792, ch. 33, § 1, 1 Stat. 271 (“Militia Act”)

The individual states followed suit and enrolled males aged 18 as part of the militia. As a member of the militia, 18-year-olds were required to keep and bear the same sort of common firearms that older citizens owned.

It is for these reasons we believe these restrictions cannot stand Constitutional scrutiny and must be struck down.

Comm2A is joined in this action by Gun Owners Action League, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, The National Rifle Association of America, and Gun Owners of America

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Jason Guida and David H. Thompson, Peter A Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of the law firm Cooper & Kirk

Complaint Attached.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Worth mentioning Massachusetts Militia Statute:

MA Gen L ch 33 § 3
The militia shall consist of two classes, namely, the organized militia, composed and organized as provided in this chapter, and the remainder, to be known as the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall not be subject to duty except in case of war, actual or threatened, invasion, the prevention of invasion, threats to homeland security, and the assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws.

MA Gen L ch 33 § 2
The militia of the commonwealth shall consist of:

(i) all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of 18 and 65, and who are residents of the commonwealth; and
(ii) such other persons who, upon their own application, enlist or are commissioned pursuant to this chapter, subject to exemptions created by law.

 

[JoseyWales]

Worth mentioning Massachusetts Militia Statute:

MA Gen L ch 33 § 3
The militia shall consist of two classes, namely, the organized militia, composed and organized as provided in this chapter, and the remainder, to be known as the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall not be subject to duty except in case of war, actual or threatened, invasion, the prevention of invasion, threats to homeland security, and the assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws.

MA Gen L ch 33 § 2
The militia of the commonwealth shall consist of:

(i) all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of 18 and 65, and who are residents of the commonwealth; and
(ii) such other persons who, upon their own application, enlist or are commissioned pursuant to this chapter, subject to exemptions created by law.

Playing devils advocate, they could argue if someone is 65, are they out of luck? Like a 14, 15, 16, or 17 year old misses out?

 

[Darksideblues42]

Playing devils advocate, they could argue if someone is 65, are they out of luck? Like a 14, 15, 16, or 17 year old misses out?

Not likely, since they (the Commonwealth) have historically offered zero cost LTC/FID after a certain age, so there is a clear framework which shows they recognized the right to firearms even after 65.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Waste of resources

Any plaintiff will age out before this even gets a whiff of a court room.

 

[KH56010]

Waste of resources

Any plaintiff will age out before this even gets a whiff of a court room.

Using this logic, we shouldn't have Miranda rights. The Supreme Court decision didn't keep Ernesto out of prison.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Using this logic, we shouldn't have Miranda rights. The Supreme Court decision didn't keep Ernesto out of prison.

Read over what i posted again

Maybe it’ll sink in the second time

 

[Darksideblues42]

Waste of resources

Any plaintiff will age out before this even gets a whiff of a court room.

I am sure we can always find another 18-20 year old FID holder who wants to be the face of change for all the right reasons.

 

[MickeyD’s]

I am sure we can always find another 18-20 year old FID holder who wants to be the face of change for all the right reasons.

Absolutely

But that’s not the problem, the problem is the 3 year time frame you are racing against.

 

[gerrycaruso]

I don't know what chance we have but Maura tramples all over our rights and I think it's great that some are willing to fight back.

 

[milktree]

Absolutely

But that’s not the problem, the problem is the 2 year time frame you are racing against.

You’re missing the point.

A win here sets precedent that semi-auto guns are protected.

 

[FalArAk]

You’re missing the point.

A win here sets precedent that semi-auto guns are protected.

Did you mean to say setting precedent that "certain" semi-auto's that the state deems to be safe are protected?

 

[milktree]

Did you mean to say setting precedent that "certain" semi-auto's that the state deems to be safe are protected?

No.

Don’t conflate a complete ban on 18-20 year old people owning semi-autos with consumer protection regs.

A win here prevents a Colorado style ban on the possession of semi-autos.

 

[MickeyD’s]

You’re missing the point.

A win here sets precedent that semi-auto guns are protected.

You’re getting ahead of yourself

 

[VTski4x4]

Any time FPC publicly tells MA and Maura to go f*** themselves - im all about it. Especially the extra trolling they do. Extra donation sent.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Absolutely

But that’s not the problem, the problem is the 2 year time frame you are racing against.

Three year. Apply for LTC on 18th birthday, it will be three years before they are 21.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Three year. Apply for LTC on 18th birthday, it will be three years before they are 21.

Typo chief

 

[Darksideblues42]

Typo chief

No worries, I just want to be sure communication is clear and concise.

 

[drgrant]

Waste of resources

Any plaintiff will age out before this even gets a whiff of a court room.

There's several legal concepts that prevent this from being an issue. The idea that the plaintiff is not longer impinged by the law doesn't undo the fact that they were harmed by the law.

You may want to consider staying in your lane.

These lawsuits are rarely that superficially simple.

 

[Darksideblues42]

There's several legal concepts that prevent this from being an issue. The idea that the plaintiff is not longer impinged by the law doesn't undo the fact that they were harmed by the law.

You may want to consider staying in your lane.

These lawsuits are rarely that superficially simple.

Generally true, but in White v Cox we basically faced Boston moving all our plaintiffs to the top of the processing pile which removed live controversy which limited the scope of what the court could do because of the grounds on which the case was filed.

Small differences between delays and outright prohibitions though.

 

[drgrant]

@MickeyD’s the antis tried mooting things before, it doesn't work unless it's very, very early in the process. You have to directly intercept the problem otherwise it doesn't count. That's why krispy kreme and Bloomberg even used to intercept illegal possession cases and get them dismissed so they couldn't be used for 2A suits. Once the boat has left the dock far enough it's not possible to moot the case.

 

[MickeyD’s]

There's several legal concepts that prevent this from being an issue. The idea that the plaintiff is not longer impinged by the law doesn't undo the fact that they were harmed by the law.

You may want to consider staying in your lane.

These lawsuits are rarely that superficially simple.

We’ll see

I’ll stay in my lane, don’t wish to intrude on your c***y lane

 

[HARRYM]

Kinda wondering why some don't understand that justice delayed is justice denied. The Left absolutely understands how the game is played and frankly plays it better than we do. They understand that for the most part they control the Courts in their respective states. They understand the process of appeals and understand the time it takes for the appeals to make their way through the system. They understand Roberts position to not jump the lower courts and to make the appeals follow the standard route. 3 or 4 years in some cases is quite common. Even if we win in the end the Left has simply ignored the ruling or tweaked the lost case, call it a new one, and start the damn delay, delay process all over again.

 

[HARRYM]

At least 500,000 LTC holders in MA and GOAL was so happy that they reached 23K in membership..........Is it me? Or should we realize how effed up this is.

 

[free]

At least 500,000 LTC holders in MA and GOAL was so happy that they reached 23K in membership..........Is it me? Or should we realize how effed up this is.

It's you. Why do you think LTC men should automatically be assumed to have to join GOAL? It's not the greatest organization to begin with.

And, should all MA driver's license holders have also joined AAA?

 

[KMM696]

At least 500,000 LTC holders in MA and GOAL was so happy that they reached 23K in membership..........Is it me? Or should we realize how effed up this is.

Looking at membership percentage of gun owners, that's roughly the same as the NRA has managed. Yeah, I think they're entitled to be happy about that.

 

[HARRYM]

First of all this thread is about the Escher v. Noble lawsuit filed Friday of which GOAL was not a part of. Once again the self anointed organizer of the legal fight against HB-4885 is nowhere to be seen. This might help explain why they only have 23K in membership.

"Breaking News:

Comm2A joins with Gun Owners Action League, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, The National Rifle Association of America, and Gun Owners of America to file a challenge to the laws prohibiting 18-20 year olds from possession, purchase, and carry of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and all handguns."


Your derangement syndrome is showing........again.

 

[HARRYM]

Looking at membership percentage of gun owners, that's roughly the same as the NRA has managed. Yeah, I think they're entitled to be happy about that.

Neither should be happy, but they take what they can get.

 

[Darksideblues42]

First of all this thread is about the Escher v. Noble lawsuit filed Friday of which GOAL was not a part of. Once again the self anointed organizer of the legal fight against HB-4885 is nowhere to be seen. This might help explain why they only have 23K in membership.

GOAL is absolutely a part of this case.

There are a ton of us.

 

[Comm2A]

The case has been assigned to George A. O’Toole, a senior district judge, who temporarily blocked the federal worker buyout two weeks ago before letting it go forward last week.



Case Name:

Escher et al v. Noble et al

Case Number:

1:25-cv-10389-GAO

Filer:

Document Number:

4

Docket Text:
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley.