• 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 Sues Town of Dighton

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with just about everything Judge Stearns said in his memorandum and order to dismiss...except one key line:

The shotgun was secured by a cabletrigger lock as required Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 131L(a).

The section he referred to applies only to storage, not transport. Although right now I can't seem to find the section that applies to non-large capacity long gun transport for counter-proof.

Is the judge mistaken on this point? Can someone point me to the section that lists non-large capacity transport requirements?
 
Last edited:
I agree with just about everything Judge Stearns said in his memorandum and order to dismiss...except one key line:



The section he referred to applies only to storage, not transport. Although right now I can't seem to find the section that applies to non-large capacity long gun transport for counter-proof.

Is the judge mistaken on this point? Can someone point me to the section that lists non-large capacity transport requirements?

MGL Ch 140 S 131C covers firearms in vehicles. It does not have any specific rules for transporting non-large-capacity long guns, only handguns and large-capacity long guns.
MGL Ch 131 S 63 prohibits having a loaded shotgun or rifle in a motor vehicle. CHAPTER 131 covers "INLAND FISHERIES AND GAME AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES", but I assume the law applies everywhere.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131C
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIX/Chapter131/Section63
 
Yes, we survived the town's motion to dismiss. Now it's on the the merits of the case.

This part was important too:
Plouffe has not been charged under the Safe Storage Law nor does the March 26, 2013 police report factually support the Chief’s decision.

I agree with just about everything Judge Stearns said in his memorandum and order to dismiss...except one key line:
The shotgun was secured by a cabletrigger lock as required Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 131L(a).
I think the point here was even if the chief wanted to use improper storage as a reason for suspending the license, he couldn't because the shotgun was secured properly under 131L.
 
Last edited:
Someone who lives there should write the local paper, to make sure it gets some eyes on this case.
 

Just wanted to bump this. Bought a T-shirt for myself a few weeks ago. I ordered the shirt at night, got it basically one day later. Very fast shipping by the Comm2a folks. It's a nice shirt, and comfortable. Would definitely make a great gift for Christmas for yourself or someone else. Best of all, the $30.00 goes to a great cause.
 
Just an FYI:

Matt Trask, the lawyer for Comm2A and the plaintiff, dismissed the case against Dighton today. The plaintiff needed to dismiss the case for personal reasons. At the end of the day, we (Comm2A) can not do what we do alone. Sometimes that means support in the form of donations and other times it's plaintiffs having to work inside a smaller box than they would otherwise have to. Ultimately, in each of the cases we have to work with the plaintiffs and their needs.

BTW, the strategic civil rights litigation game is a long hard slog of small moves building strong legal foundations. There will be bumps along the road. We will get past them.
 
He should reimburse you guys for your time. Just kidding. Any other FID cases in the work? Would love to see the courts recognize shall issue for Linsky can't touch it.
 
Thanks for the update. Understanding that people need to go a different path than we would have liked.

Can only imagine the pressure the young kid was going through.


Keep up the great work.
 
How the heck does that happen? How do you wind up wasting your time and resources then have someone back out "for personal reasons" and you guys don't get angry and out the bastard?


Long hard slogs don't need to be longer and sloggier. WTH
 
Just an FYI:

Matt Trask, the lawyer for Comm2A and the plaintiff, dismissed the case against Dighton today. The plaintiff needed to dismiss the case for personal reasons. At the end of the day, we (Comm2A) can not do what we do alone. Sometimes that means support in the form of donations and other times it's plaintiffs having to work inside a smaller box than they would otherwise have to. Ultimately, in each of the cases we have to work with the plaintiffs and their needs.

BTW, the strategic civil rights litigation game is a long hard slog of small moves building strong legal foundations. There will be bumps along the road. We will get past them.

"for personal reasons" ... Doesn't pass my sniff test...

This case was a slam dunk against the town.
 
Now I, like you guys, am just taking a shot in the dark here.
What if Terra had informed us this was dropped "for personal reasons" because he can't actually say what happened.

I'm sure there is much more than he is allowed to say.
 
How the heck does that happen? How do you wind up wasting your time and resources then have someone back out "for personal reasons" and you guys don't get angry and out the bastard?


Long hard slogs don't need to be longer and sloggier. WTH

Please realize we have a responsibility to preserve people's privacy. While I have taken part in more than a few outings here on NES, some were good fun, Comm2A is more than than a internet forum where it's all fun and games.


cops probably made the guys life a living hell.I could see cops following the guy and pulling him over constantly

Additionally, speculating about what those reasons were and who may or may not be involved in those reasons is only going to lead no where. If I had the power to tell everything, I would be. It's in all of our best interests that this went the way it did at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Now I, like you guys, am just taking a shot in the dark here.
What if Terra had informed us this was dropped "for personal reasons" because he can't actually say what happened.

I'm sure there is much more than he is allowed to say.

Yup.
 
Well, that sucks. I'm in no position to Monday morning QB this though and I get that these can be very grueling for the plaintiff.

So my assumption is, as far as setting precedents, it's like this never happened, correct? Do we perversely wait and hope for another baseless FID revocation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom