Comm2A Sues Town of Dighton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would a cop show 'distaste' because a 19 year old kid is hanging out with a younger kid?

Something there doesn't pass the smell test.

Does that make me distasteful when I bring my daughter's friends to the range to introduce them to shooting?

(In case it isn't clear....obviously with parent's permission)

I think that kid should get the hell out of Dighton
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Chap 140 section 129d requires the plaintiff to turn over his firearms and ammunition upon the suspension of his FID card. That they seized a black powder gun and other non-regulated items was improper, but typical.
Click to expand...

What I was asking is if the visit to the home was a result of the suspension of the FID; you seem to be saying that it was. That's not outlined explicitly in the suit and the order is reversed in the suit, IIRC.

That's all... I was wondering if they came to talk to him about it and seized the weapons then went back and suspended his license.

Thanks for the explanation...
 
There is also the pesky matter of 42 USC 1988. If (er, when) Comm2a wins, we will be entitled to have the defendant pay the legal fees for this case. (The state paid the Comm2a Attorney after we won Fletcher v. Haas under a 1988 claim).

I'm sure a press release to the local paper explaining "Town pays Comm2A legal fees in the amount of $x" would be very well received by the selectmen.
 
The complaint is pretty good, but really I want to see the response, when they file one. It should be very interesting.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Comm2A and an individual plaintiff have filed a federal civil rights action against the Town of Dighton and Chief Robert MacDonald for suspending a resident's FID card and seizing his two shotguns in violation of state law.

The is very straightforward example of police bullying. The complaint speaks for itself, so we want people to read it (complaint).

The police reports support our complaint are even more damning. We're looking forward to this one.

A special thanks to attorney Matt Trask for a job very well done in this case.
Click to expand...

Read the complaint - holy mother... yet another police chief who thinks that laws are for peasants only.

Shame that you cannot sue the chief personally, too - even if the town has to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, the chief's pocketbook will not be affected.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
There is also the pesky matter of 42 USC 1988. If (er, when) Comm2a wins, we will be entitled to have the defendant pay the legal fees for this case. (The state paid the Comm2a Attorney after we won Fletcher v. Haas under a 1988 claim).

I'm sure a press release to the local paper explaining "Town pays Comm2A legal fees in the amount of $x" would be very well received by the selectmen.
Click to expand...
And that's where we find the major enforcement mechanism. What the chiefs will end up fearing is answering to their boards of selectmen for exposing their towns to the costs of our litigation.

TheRoland said:
The complaint is pretty good, but really I want to see the response, when they file one. It should be very interesting.
Click to expand...
Me too! It's really difficult to be articulate when you're trying to justify bullying.
 
Since Comm2A filed this under Section 1983, why isn't the Chief named personally as a defendant in addition to his official capacity?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
There is also the pesky matter of 42 USC 1988. If (er, when) Comm2a wins, we will be entitled to have the defendant pay the legal fees for this case. (The state paid the Comm2a Attorney after we won Fletcher v. Haas under a 1988 claim).

I'm sure a press release to the local paper explaining "Town pays Comm2A legal fees in the amount of $x" would be very well received by the selectmen.
Click to expand...

The one thing that everyone, even politicians, understands is money.
Bravo Comm2A
 
Garys said:
Since Comm2A filed this under Section 1983, why isn't the Chief named personally as a defendant in addition to his official capacity?
Click to expand...

[STRIKE=.]He is. Read the complaint header again.[/STRIKE]

ETA: Right, he is only sued officially because he would have qualified immunity. No reason to waste the court's resources.
 
Last edited:
Wrench75 said:
OK relax there big guy! I hadn't seen your other post before I posted mine. I clicked reply over an hour ago and between reading shit and getting sidetracked several other posts went up including yours. Sheesh, you might want to consider trying decaf...
Click to expand...

Nice - so you post incorrect legal information in post 14 (at 3:58am, no less). No big deal - everybody get confused by MA laws.

Post 16 (5:30am), 18 (5:59am) and 19 (6:07am) gently point out that you are wrong and provide you with sources backing up the actual rules.

In post 21 (6:25am), you stick to your original mistake and add a quote to a law that you were already told does NOT apply to low capacity shotguns, so post 22 corrects you more forcefully.

Instead of simply admitting you were wrong and maybe thanking the posters who helped you learn something useful, you lash out at the people who already had to correct you twice and in the process claim that it took you an hour to post a reply consisting of 11 words and a link :)

Nice going - please, keep entertaining us.
 
terraformer said:
He is. Read the complaint header again.
Click to expand...

ROBERT L. MACDONALD, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Dighton Police Department,
Click to expand...

The last one of these I saw said XXXXX personally AND in his Official Capacity as Supt. of Schools...

Maybe the required wording has changed. For the benefit of those who don't know, a defendant in a civil rights suit (Section 1983) can not be reimbursed by his municipal employer for damages if he loses. The money comes out of his or her own pocket. If he's sued in his Official Capacity, he can be reimbursed.

Again, maybe the required wording has changed, which I wouldn't really know since it's been 30 years since I was involved in any of this.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
There is also the pesky matter of 42 USC 1988. If (er, when) Comm2a wins, we will be entitled to have the defendant pay the legal fees for this case. (The state paid the Comm2a Attorney after we won Fletcher v. Haas under a 1988 claim).

I'm sure a press release to the local paper explaining "Town pays Comm2A legal fees in the amount of $x" would be very well received by the selectmen.
Click to expand...

and hopefully punitive damages as well.[smile]
 
Dighton has a population of ~7,000, I can't imagine the populace will be pleased with this or be supportive of a chief that would abuse his position and cost the town $$$.
 
Garys said:
The last one of these I saw said XXXXX personally AND in his Official Capacity as Supt. of Schools...

Maybe the required wording has changed. For the benefit of those who don't know, a defendant in a civil rights suit (Section 1983) can not be reimbursed by his municipal employer for damages if he loses. The money comes out of his or her own pocket. If he's sued in his Official Capacity, he can be reimbursed.

Again, maybe the required wording has changed, which I wouldn't really know since it's been 30 years since I was involved in any of this.
Click to expand...

We can't sue him personally in this matter. He has qualified immunity so why even bother wasting the court's time with it. And now I see I misread your earlier post. I thought you missed the chief being named at all because Dighton was named first. Sorry. I was still groggy when I read that. You were right the first time, we did not sue him personally.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
There is also the pesky matter of 42 USC 1988. If (er, when) Comm2a wins, we will be entitled to have the defendant pay the legal fees for this case. (The state paid the Comm2a Attorney after we won Fletcher v. Haas under a 1988 claim).

I'm sure a press release to the local paper explaining "Town pays Comm2A legal fees in the amount of $x" would be very well received by the selectmen.
Click to expand...

I'll chip in to run a full page ad.

"Dighton Residents: Your Police Chief's blatant abuse of power and disrespect for The Constitution and Federal and State laws cost you $X. Give him a call and ask why."
 
What is "qualified" immunity? At what point does an action by an officer become so egregious that they lose this immunity?
 
I was reading the other thread about the legislature attempting to make an FID, a "May" issue from a "Shall" issue. Is the hope in this lawsuit that the courts define an FID card a guarantee right, so it will be impossible to ever go to a "May" issue for an FID card?
 
mctrinket said:
The really crazy thing--if I've read it correctly--is that if this kid had had an LTC (which is a "may issue") as opposed to an FID (which is "shall issue") there would have been no overreach by the police. That is a really frightening thought. A CoP can basically take away an individual's 2A rights for any stupid reason they like in this state.
Click to expand...

The even crazier thing is, this is what Linsky's bill would allow. He wants this exact sort of discretion for FIDs.
 
Quiet said:
What is "qualified" immunity? At what point does an action by an officer become so egregious that they lose this immunity?
Click to expand...

In effect, someone who has qualified immunity won't be forced to pay anything. They get that fictional protection by acting in a way that has not been clearly deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets
Replies
24
Views
534
drgrant
drgrant
City of Chicago sues Glock Inc. over 'facilitating' illegal gun conversions: The firearms can be turned into machine guns for as little as $20
Replies
25
Views
521
jkelly1229
J
Finally finished...well sort of
Replies
14
Views
487
Mountain
Mountain
LTC application in your town
Replies
1
Views
382
dragonballzz
D
Mall of NH shooting
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
hunt4riches
H
Back
Top Bottom