Comm2A Sues Town of Dighton

[soam]

Man, I just don't understand why they think they can get away with the BS they're spouting in the MTD. There was no storage violation, so all their crowing about how the storage laws and FID requirements are constitutional are irrelevant, since the storage law was not violated, and therefore the revocation of his FID was illegal.

I can't wait until this gets in front of a judge. They are going to get absolutely hammered for this.

 

[EC1]

Man, I just don't understand why they think they can get away with the BS they're spouting in the MTD. There was no storage violation, so all their crowing about how the storage laws and FID requirements are constitutional are irrelevant, since the storage law was not violated, and therefore the revocation of his FID was illegal.

I can't wait until this gets in front of a judge. They are going to get absolutely hammered for this.

I think I'll wait, afterall this is mASSachusetts.

 

[PaulD]

I think I'll wait, afterall this is mASSachusetts.

Beat me to it.

 

[jeff12340]

I just hope the judge does the right thing

 

[exo]

I think I'll wait, afterall this is mASSachusetts.

This is in federal court

 

[rwl1955]

This is in federal court

*******
why would the case be in a Federal Court?

 

[soam]

*******
why would the case be in a Federal Court?

Because that's where it was filed. Read the "JURISDICTION AND VENUE" section of the complaint.

 

[rwl1955]

Because that's where it was filed. Read the "JURISDICTION AND VENUE" section of the complaint.

*******
OK, why would the case be filed in Federal Court since it's state matter?

 

[Studro]

Does anyone know where the alleged storage violation occured? In the vehicle, i'm assuming? So let me get this straight, it was a non large capacity shotgun with a trigger lock on his backseat? They let him go, then alleged it was a violation? Seems like the Patrol guy knew his laws, but the chief got involved and jacked it up.

 

[P-14]

*******
why would the case be in a Federal Court?

So the case gets a ruling based on the law and not a politically correct one.

 

[soam]

*******
OK, why would the case be filed in Federal Court since it's state matter?

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,
2201,2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and U.S. Const. Amendment II and XIV.

Because the chief violated the Plaintiff's civil rights as protected by the 2nd and 14th amendments, and US law specifically grants jurisdiction to the Federal district courts on matters relating to the US Constitution and civil rights.

 

[dcmdon]

I have not read all 11 pages. But there is one thing that is clear.

Neither the plaintiff nor the police seem to understand MA law.

If the firearms in question are not large capacity firearms, they don't have to be locked or boxed or anything.

If the firearms in question are large capacity (which they weren't in this case) then a lock does not make you legal. The firearms must be in a "locked trunk" or "locked container".

This comes back to this strange obsession MA people have with gun locks. I don't get it.

Either way, the plaintiff did not have to lock his firearms up at all. He could have held it across his lap and still been in compliance with the law.

 

[2A_Esq.]

I have not read all 11 pages. But there is one thing that is clear.

Neither the plaintiff nor the police seem to understand MA law.

If the firearms in question are not large capacity firearms, they don't have to be locked or boxed or anything.

If the firearms in question are large capacity (which they weren't in this case) then a lock does not make you legal. The firearms must be in a "locked trunk" or "locked container".

This comes back to this strange obsession MA people have with gun locks. I don't get it.

Either way, the plaintiff did not have to lock his firearms up at all. He could have held it across his lap and still been in compliance with the law.

While your observations are correct, there is more to the story that makes the fact that the shotgun in question was equipped with a cable lock relevant to mention in the complaint.

 

[Radtekk]

Although it did him no good, locking the gun shows "extra care" in my mind, and I imagine that will be mentioned at trial. Just for fun, the argument could be made that he was taking precautions in the event of an accident where a non-locked firearm or one in an unlocked case in the trunk would then become "available". Regardless of what occurs, a firearm with a cable lock would be "secured" under ANY condition.

 

[30Mauser]

While your observations are correct, there is more to the story that makes the fact that the shotgun in question was equipped with a cable lock relevant to mention in the complaint.

Don't answer this, but I'm guessing that it has to do with accessibility of the firearm to minor / unlicensed passengers in the vehicle.

 

[JJ4]

Seems like the defendants are using some serious circular logic. A implies B implies A therefore it's all legal and constitutional.

 

[jefftk]

They actually cited the mistake made by the SJC in the Hightower decision. Epic.

Whats that?

 

[MisterHappy]

Don't answer this, but I'm guessing that it has to do with accessibility of the firearm to minor / unlicensed passengers in the vehicle.

IMO, That would not be relevant, as the gun(s) and the unlicensed person(s) would be under the "control" of the licensed person, just as when sharing a gun with a minor hunting, or shooting with an unlicensed person at the range.

Not to say that Massprudence is not warranted, but that it's not a legal requirement, and that's what counts when it's Judge time.

IANAL, etc.

 

[30Mauser]

IMO, That would not be relevant, as the gun(s) and the unlicensed person(s) would be under the "control" of the licensed person, just as when sharing a gun with a minor hunting, or shooting with an unlicensed person at the range.

Not to say that Massprudence is not warranted, but that it's not a legal requirement, and that's what counts when it's Judge time.

IANAL, etc.

Agreed in theory, but there are plenty of examples of people in MA getting screwed because a firearm in the vehicle wasn't deemed to be "under their control".

 

[MisterHappy]

Was it not a long gun in this case ( I may be wrong, it's a long thread). Therefore it would not be, per MGLs, a "firearm". I know that a "Firearm" must be under one's direct control or properly secured per MGLs, but a non-large capacity long gun could legally, though unwisely, be carried in a pickup's gun rack if it is unloaded.

The whole thing is Charlie Foxtrot, but having a loose shottie on the back seat is not (currently/yet) a crime....though John Law may try to make it one, during a traffic stop.

 

[Len-2A Training]

While your observations are correct, there is more to the story that makes the fact that the shotgun in question was equipped with a cable lock relevant to mention in the complaint.

Don't answer this, but I'm guessing that it has to do with accessibility of the firearm to minor / unlicensed passengers in the vehicle.

I'm with Ted on this one and suspect that since they made such a big deal out of him being in the car with a "minor" (and someone the police didn't like), the gun lock makes it very clear that the minor had no access to the gun. Let's face it, with a long gun on a back seat . . . who has more immediate/easier access to it? The driver (with a steering wheel in his gut) or a passenger?

So as much as low-capacity long guns can indeed be transported without a lock, using the lock SHOULD BE a guarantee to stay out of the gray area of being accused of allowing an unlicensed party access to a gun while they are driving.

 

[Studro]

Someone may have already said this, but I wonder if the kid in the other seat was a prohibited person? I read the first part of the complaint and it said he was with licensed adults and was authorized to be there. I don't recall it saying how old the kid is, but I wonder if he did something to become on that PP list? Thats the only angle I could see, and if its the case its complete BS. Curious what the other sides idea was.

 

[lancecolonel]

the other kid in the car is allegedly a minor. if a "minor" is already a PP then we have much bigger problems than one kid getting his FID yanked.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today, plaintiffs (Comm2A and Matt Plouffee) filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. It's another must-read filing by Attorney Matt Trask.

If you like this case and want to see more of the same, click here.

Highlights:

It would seem from the defendant’s motion to dismiss that MacDonald believes that he, in his capacity as the chief licensing officer for the Town of Dighton, may act as judge and jury with respect to a criminal allegation, particularly one completely unsupported factually by the observations of his own officers. At no time was a violation of §131L formally alleged by the Commonwealth or the District Attorney for the County of Plymouth, let alone proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant MacDonald suspended the plaintiff’s FID on March 27, 2013, stating that the plaintiff “failed to store your firearm(s) as required under M.G.L. c. 140 § 131L”, despite the fact that the defendants’ own records indicate the plaintiff’s shotgun was stored with a proper trigger lock and was unloaded.

The pursuit of a state court appeal under § 129B would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff, since as the appealing party, Plouffe would bear the burden of proving the truth or falsehood of the disqualifying event under M.G.L. c. 140 § 129B – namely, his innocence of the underlying criminal allegations raised by the Dighton Police Department – thereby forcing Plouffe to choose whether to enjoy his Fifth Amendment or Second Amendment protections, but not both.

The defendant was in possession of, and ostensibly relied upon, the police reports showing the shotgun was locked at all times when suspending Plaintiffs FID card and subsequently seizing plaintiff's property. Said violation of the plaintiff’s Second Amendment protections serves as the basis for his claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

 

[JJ4]

Today, plaintiffs (Comm2A and Matt Plouffee) filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. It's another must-read filing by Attorney Matt Trask.

If you like this case and want to see more of the same, click here.

Hell yes. A home run.

I love how the defendant's own records completely destroy their justification of their actions.

 

[Roscoe]

Man, I just don't understand why they think they can get away with the BS they're spouting in the MTD. There was no storage violation, so all their crowing about how the storage laws and FID requirements are constitutional are irrelevant, since the storage law was not violated, and therefore the revocation of his FID was illegal.

I can't wait until this gets in front of a judge. They are going to get absolutely hammered for this.

I honestly wouldn't place any heavy bets on a judge holding the line for the law. He will most likely use the lowest level of scrutiny he can to preserve their control of guns.

The judicial branch are not our friends in the northeast.

Best if luck though, comm2a has a great record.

 

[Riverside]

Very interesting summary in opposition to the request for dismissal. I can easily see why the Dighton Demons want the case dismissed. If this were in a mASSachusetts Court, it would most likely be dismissed. The entire situation is absurd and an embarrassment to those whose duty it is to uphold the law, not make up the rules to suit their whims and fancy. Chief MacDonald should be suspended and then fired.
Best regards.

 

[je25ff]

Could this be used to show the May issue part of the ltc could easily be abused ?

This. I'm not a lawyer, but there seems to be a logical link between possible abuse of license revocation and may issue.

 

[dcmdon]

I'm with Ted on this one and suspect that since they made such a big deal out of him being in the car with a "minor" (and someone the police didn't like), the gun lock makes it very clear that the minor had no access to the gun. Let's face it, with a long gun on a back seat . . . who has more immediate/easier access to it? The driver (with a steering wheel in his gut) or a passenger?

So as much as low-capacity long guns can indeed be transported without a lock, using the lock SHOULD BE a guarantee to stay out of the gray area of being accused of allowing an unlicensed party access to a gun while they are driving.

Lets just clarify this. Since the Massophobes will take this literally.

If it is uncased, in the car, a lock is prudent.

If its in a locked case or in the trunk of a vehicle, its a bit of overkill. Especially in the trunk, since in most cases a LEO would not even know you had a firearm with you if you were stopped for a traffic violation.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but some here will take your suggestion out of context to mean that you should always have a lock on the gun.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There's no relationship between the alleged 131L violation and the presence a minor. Please don't invent one.