-
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 WINS again(!) over minor past pot conviction
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
That's the nature of the case. It was narrowly tailored to only focus on the pot disqualification, and no other issue, because as we've seen in the past a "kitchen sink" approach leads to the whole case being dismissed. The judge is just saying "I am only ruling on the issue this lawsuit is about, and no other issue"
JGreen
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,885
- Likes
- 700
One interesting tidbit I got out of reading the judge's ruling. Comm2A was dismissed from the suit as not having standing due to no connection made in court between the plaintiff and Comm2A (it wasn't proven that he was a Comm2A member). So not merely being a membership org is needed, but plaintiffs have to be members of Comm2A in order for Comm2A to have standing in these cases.
The take-away is people wronged need to donate to Comm2A prior to using Comm2A to file suit.
The take-away is people wronged need to donate to Comm2A prior to using Comm2A to file suit.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,500
- Likes
- 33,492
Standing is always going to be a hurdle, which is why we try to have multiple plaintiffs with the same issue (it's nice to have a spare in case one plaintiff dies off or bows out of the litigation).
Bring it on. Our attorneys are hungry for this sort of slam dunk case.
If judges keep ruling on specific individuals, we may have to assembly line our of state marijuana based denials and get used to a steady stream of legal fee reimbursement checks.
Bring it on. Our attorneys are hungry for this sort of slam dunk case.
We'll get around to fighting the standing issue sooner or later, but for now its a back-burner issue.
CrackPot
NES Member
Interesting how narrow the ruling was. It disallowed application of a specific element of the law only. The chief can still deny on suitability or otherwise place restrictions. A chink in the states armor for certain that can be built on but not in itself a huge victory.
That's how these cases work - a very narrowly-tailored case challenging a particular aspect of the law is far more likely to succeed than throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. The narrowness of the ruling is a reflection of the narrowness of the case. A narrow win is far preferable to a broad loss.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,500
- Likes
- 33,492
We were litigating one issue in this case - is an out of state, non-expungable, conviction for simple possession of the heathen devil weed a lifetime disqualifier? The court answered that question with a resounding "No!".
This is another decision that is addressed specifically at the one plaintiff and does not make a broad statement about public policy. This means that Comm2A may need to file another federal case if the state continues to deny other applicants based on this issue. That's not a huge problem, since we pick up our legal fees from the state under 42 USC 1983 each time we win a case like this.
We were not litigating other aspects of the licensing process, restrictions, or suitability, so we weren't about to get a decision "Not only is this person not disqualified, but the court concludes he must be issued a license". The system doesn't work that way.
The other approach is to file a suit asking a broad swatch of gun laws be declared null and void. GOAL did that with the 1998 law and lost, both decisively and predictably.
Narrow yes, but the chief would still have to tie a suitability denial to public safety. Given that a sealed MA conviction CANNOT be used to deny someone, it's hard to see how a suitability denial based on an out of state possession conviction could be upheld
Moot point however as Mr. Richmond already has his LTC.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,500
- Likes
- 33,492
Not necessarily at the state level (I'm referring to as practiced, not law).
The state courts are still using the catch-all from Comm v. Shelburne and replying (in at least some cases) with "The court will not substitute its judgement from that of the police chief". I read one recent decision that said just this, and did not even discuss or rule on the merits of the applicant, or if he proposed a risk to public safety.
So, Comm2A still had plenty of work to do.
But, in cases like this, the department often does not have a jihad like opposition to issuing the subject a license, but either fees bound by MGL, or the FRB is rejecting an otherwise approved license.
Again, we got mentioned in the Volokh Conspiracy.
No handgun for you — you illegally possessed <1 oz. of marijuana in 1975
No handgun for you — you illegally possessed <1 oz. of marijuana in 1975
inkdesigner
NES Member
My guess is that chiefs will just adjust and go from flat denying the LTC to issuing it, but issuing it with such tight restrictions that the LTC is virtually worthless for anything other than having a firearm in the house.
GlockJock
NES Member
+1 (although I'd prefer if you'd rephrase the last paragraph to read simply: "Everyone needs to donate to Comm2A")
Period. Exclamation point. [emoji6]
Not really. The Chiefs want to issue these licenses. The state is the problem and the police are in the middle.
sigh...We'll I guess this one isn't over just yet. Apparently the Hingham police chief holds the view that the violation of a citizen's constitutional rights should carry no consequences.
On September 30th we filed a motion for the recovery of legal fees in the amount of nearly $13,000 pursuant to 42 USC 1988. A very reasonable amount given the time and experience of attorney Jeff Scrimo. Hingham, has objected and we'll see them back in court (with the meter running).
Everything has been posted on the Comm2A website: Richmond v. Peraino.
09/30/2015 -- Plaintiff's motion for award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988
10/14/2015 -- Defendant's opposition to the motion for ward of attorney fees
10/15/2015 -- Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's opposition
On September 30th we filed a motion for the recovery of legal fees in the amount of nearly $13,000 pursuant to 42 USC 1988. A very reasonable amount given the time and experience of attorney Jeff Scrimo. Hingham, has objected and we'll see them back in court (with the meter running).
Everything has been posted on the Comm2A website: Richmond v. Peraino.
09/30/2015 -- Plaintiff's motion for award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988
10/14/2015 -- Defendant's opposition to the motion for ward of attorney fees
10/15/2015 -- Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's opposition
Last edited:
Go get em... People don't learn unless it hits their wallet.
They don't care. They're spending OUR money.
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
