Could a SCOTUS w/ CJ Kavanaugh rule the MA firearm registry (sales tracker) unConstitutional?

His dissent in Heller2 was just that, that D.C.'s registration requirement was far and away above what other states required.

Since the FA-10 system in MA functions as a defacto registry, could MA gun owners sue to have it eliminated?

Never happen, that's so far down the list of 2A legal priorities in MA to the point of it being nearly irrelevant.

-Mike
 
Fair, Mike, but if that case makes it to the SCOTUS, MA's priorities won't matter.


It's not MA's priorities but the priorities of people that are going to want to pay for a supreme court grade gun case with all the trimmings. It won't because nobody is going to pay for that, that's really my point. If there was a list of "things that are a huge problem for MA gun owners" that stupid FA-10 system, while annoying, would be dead last on the list.

Besides, the core problem (WRT "gun registration) really is the LTC system anyways. Even if the FA-10 system is gone tomorrow and all the records destroyed, if someone has an LTC in MA there's a really good chance the person with said license has a gun or guns at home, or at least the authorities are going to assume that by default.

ETA: I've witnessed this 2nd hand- My ex had this guy living in her house that had a warrant out on him. Cops came looking for him and first thing they did is ask if the guy had any access to her firearms (because she has an LTC in the system). She's never bought a gun in her life or has a single one to her name, but she has an
LTC and has maintained it for like a decade. Basically my point is the cops "just
assumed she had guns cuz ltc" and didn't bother to look up her registered
guns at all.

The other problem with viability of the suit is gun registration (particularly not the passive, weak system MA uses) while its obviously evil, doesn't, at least not on the front end, prevent you from buying a gun or actually obstruct your right. Legally speaking it might even be better to attack that on some other basis other than 2A.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
It won't because nobody is going to pay for that, that's really my point. If there was a list of "things that are a huge problem for MA gun owners" that stupid FA-10 system, while annoying, would be dead last on the
list.

Besides, the core problem (WRT "gun registration) really is the LTC system anyways. Even if the FA-10 system is gone tomorrow and all the records destroyed, if someone has an LTC in MA there's a really good chance the person with said license has a gun or guns at home, or at least the authorities are going to assume that by default.

-Mike
Seriously, I'd like to see a strike down of the AWB, but even that's holding my breath. Maybe the 1998 restrictions? That being said the only thing in MA I see going that far are Healey's games...
 
If confirmed he'll be but one out of nine justices. Dissents are easy to write because the judge has the luxury of standing alone. If he wants to rule that the Massachusetts system for tracking firearms transfers is unconstitutional, he'll need to get four other justices to go along. It's unlikely that five justices will come to that radical an opinion in our lifetime.

Of course the proximate issue preventing Kavanaugh from penning such an opinion is that there is NOT A SINGLE CASE in the pipeline that would ever give SCOTUS this opportunity. It's just not in the cards. A gun registration scheme would likely be held constitutional anyway and the Massachusetts system does not fit the definition of 'registration'.

By what legal reason do you come to the conclusion that Massachusetts' tracking of firearms transfers is unconstitutional? And don't say "shall not be infringed". You'd have to demonstrate that MIRCS is a serious infringement that results in a cognizable harm to YOU.

Kavanaugh has been willing to call BS on AWBs, but can he get four others to go along? That's going to be difficult if we keep having something that looks like a mass shooting every few month. That'll scare the justiced off. It's more likely that something like carry will show up first. Even possible Comm2A's case against Boston and Brookline. It's really the most fully formed major 2A case right now.
 
What could be very realistic is the scrapping of the state level AWBs. The GOAL lawsuit that should be making it's way through the appellate process, which includes a challenge to the constitutionality of the AWB as a whole, could provide a newly seated Justice Kavanaugh and his four conservative cohorts on the court the prime opportunity to rule the MA AWB unconstitutional. This would not only kill Healey's re-interpretation, but also all of the other limits laid out in the AWB (enumerated weapons, extra-killy features, MAGAZINE LIMITS).

Residents of the DPRM could realistically find ourselves in the same regulatory boat as our free state brothers in NH with regard to scary black rifles and standard capacity magazines.

If it isn't the MA AWB directly, it could one of the several other challenges to state level AWBs that falls, rendering all of them unconstitutional.

How amazing would that be?
 
AWB and the handgun rosters (both EOPSS and the AG's super seekrit list) should both be much higher than the FA-10 system. ERPO and licensing in general should be at the very top of the list of priorities.

That steaming pile of ERPO shit is going to weaponized against us and there's no defense against it. It needs to die such a violent and horrible death that they never try to resurrect it. :mad:
 
Take the simple route. Find a way to get the SCOTUS to rule that because Congress passed laws related to firearms there exists an implied preemption clause, thus making any state law that extends beyond Fed law unlawful, unconstitutional.

Yes I know that makes us stuck with the Fed laws, but that's the way it is already and we are far better off fighting the antis on a fed level where a large portion of the country is actually on our side.

And state could still use licensing, if they wanted to, as a means of verification, as long as the requirements didn't exceed Fed restrictions and they were shall issue. So states would have some ability to regulate, it would just be inherently limited. This might help keep opposition to a minimum.
 
AWB and AG Super Secret List would seem to be the best targets. The FA10 system is annoying but, if I'm honest, I really don't care that much. The secret AG list would seem to be the most unreasonable thing going on in MA WRT firearms. I can't see that ever passing scrutiny if challenged. Even the EOPS at least has some kind of achievable standard to meet.
 
Let's not go bananas with extended wish lists. You want as-of-right LTC for non-DQs, "bear" includes right to carry away from home, and AWB demolition -- all of which are reasonably possible.
 
It's more likely that something like carry will show up first. Even possible Comm2A's case against Boston and Brookline. It's really the most fully formed major 2A case right now.

Yes, much broader impact than a Massachusetts-centric sales tracking scheme.

If a ruling could make no permit to purchase, and shall issue to carry, the laws of the land then a lot of people would be made whole.

:emoji_tiger:
 
What could be very realistic is the scrapping of the state level AWBs. The GOAL lawsuit that should be making it's way through the appellate process, which includes a challenge to the constitutionality of the AWB as a whole, could provide a newly seated Justice Kavanaugh and his four conservative cohorts on the court the prime opportunity to rule the MA AWB unconstitutional. This would not only kill Healey's re-interpretation, but also all of the other limits laid out in the AWB (enumerated weapons, extra-killy features, MAGAZINE LIMITS).

Residents of the DPRM could realistically find ourselves in the same regulatory boat as our free state brothers in NH with regard to scary black rifles and standard capacity magazines.

If it isn't the MA AWB directly, it could one of the several other challenges to state level AWBs that falls, rendering all of them unconstitutional.

How amazing would that be?

This is why the SC was the top reason to vote Trump.
 
AWB and AG Super Secret List would seem to be the best targets. The FA10 system is annoying but, if I'm honest, I really don't care that much. The secret AG list would seem to be the most unreasonable thing going on in MA WRT firearms. I can't see that ever passing scrutiny if challenged. Even the EOPS at least has some kind of achievable standard to meet.
AWB doesn't matter if they confiscate everything! The BS licensing scheme and FA-10 crap has to go! No registration BS!
 
Here’s hoping that the 2A is no longer the constitutional orphan of the SCOTUS. I’d really like to see some significant wins come our way from the branch.
I believe this is the important difference. SCOTUS has been ignoring 2A cases for a couple of years now. Perhaps now they will get on agenda.
 
It's not MA's priorities but the priorities of people that are going to want to pay for a supreme court grade gun case with all the trimmings. It won't because nobody is going to pay for that, that's really my point. If there was a list of "things that are a huge problem for MA gun owners" that stupid FA-10 system, while annoying, would be dead last on the list.

Besides, the core problem (WRT "gun registration) really is the LTC system anyways. Even if the FA-10 system is gone tomorrow and all the records destroyed, if someone has an LTC in MA there's a really good chance the person with said license has a gun or guns at home, or at least the authorities are going to assume that by default.

ETA: I've witnessed this 2nd hand- My ex had this guy living in her house that had a warrant out on him. Cops came looking for him and first thing they did is ask if the guy had any access to her firearms (because she has an LTC in the system). She's never bought a gun in her life or has a single one to her name, but she has an
LTC and has maintained it for like a decade. Basically my point is the cops "just
assumed she had guns cuz ltc" and didn't bother to look up her registered
guns at all.

The other problem with viability of the suit is gun registration (particularly not the passive, weak system MA uses) while its obviously evil, doesn't, at least not on the front end, prevent you from buying a gun or actually obstruct your right. Legally speaking it might even be better to attack that on some other basis other than 2A.

-Mike
If confirmed he'll be but one out of nine justices. Dissents are easy to write because the judge has the luxury of standing alone. If he wants to rule that the Massachusetts system for tracking firearms transfers is unconstitutional, he'll need to get four other justices to go along. It's unlikely that five justices will come to that radical an opinion in our lifetime.

Of course the proximate issue preventing Kavanaugh from penning such an opinion is that there is NOT A SINGLE CASE in the pipeline that would ever give SCOTUS this opportunity. It's just not in the cards. A gun registration scheme would likely be held constitutional anyway and the Massachusetts system does not fit the definition of 'registration'.

By what legal reason do you come to the conclusion that Massachusetts' tracking of firearms transfers is unconstitutional? And don't say "shall not be infringed". You'd have to demonstrate that MIRCS is a serious infringement that results in a cognizable harm to YOU.

Kavanaugh has been willing to call BS on AWBs, but can he get four others to go along? That's going to be difficult if we keep having something that looks like a mass shooting every few month. That'll scare the justiced off. It's more likely that something like carry will show up first. Even possible Comm2A's case against Boston and Brookline. It's really the most fully formed major 2A case right now.
^ +1 to what they said.

Not to mention, we should be careful what we wish for. Conditions for commercial sales (which would include zero-cost registration by gun dealers) is explicitly allowed by Heller, and the eFA-10 system is actually much better, free, and less obtrusive for private sales than what some states do, which is require transfers through an FFL.

D.C. went absolutely bananas with their gun registration law, way beyond any other state. For that reason I'd be hawkish about the possibility of many parts of it being struck down, but not because I think SCOTUS is likely to take such a case. If SCOTUS does more to develop 2A jurisprudence and approach, I could imagine a case making its way to the D.C. Circuit, them striking it down, and D.C. declining to appeal (or SCOTUS denying cert). But none of that applies to the MA system. I would be shocked if any court ever touched that.
 
If confirmed he'll be but one out of nine justices. Dissents are easy to write because the judge has the luxury of standing alone. If he wants to rule that the Massachusetts system for tracking firearms transfers is unconstitutional, he'll need to get four other justices to go along. It's unlikely that five justices will come to that radical an opinion in our lifetime.
...

If our sitting Supreme Court justices are so brain damaged that they can't comprehend plain English then they should be replaced with people that do...

/snarkygriping
 
I believe this is the important difference. SCOTUS has been ignoring 2A cases for a couple of years now. Perhaps now they will get on agenda.

They've been not ignoring about avoiding 2A cases, cause neither side was confident of victory. That's all changed now, assuming Cavanaugh gets in. With a solid majority on 2A, the court will start accepting cases.
 
They've been not ignoring about avoiding 2A cases, cause neither side was confident of victory. That's all changed now, assuming Cavanaugh gets in. With a solid majority on 2A, the court will start accepting cases.

Let's hope that is the case, and that the problem was kennedy. It is entirely possible that one or more of the other justices who decided for us in Heller figured that was enough, and are not willing to go further.
 
Let's hope that is the case, and that the problem was kennedy. It is entirely possible that one or more of the other justices who decided for us in Heller figured that was enough, and are not willing to go further.

Which is why we need RBG to choke on her peppermint latte.
 
Every gun law is in violation of the 2A, because "shall not be infringed"

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.


This is the point everybody (even HERE on NES) seems to miss.

Unless you personally, Chevy2, face a judge and receive a sentence that strips you of some / all of your rights (aka due process), then it is absolutely unconstitutional (against the law) to prevent you from bearing arms. There are no exceptions enumerated in the 2A.

I would argue that even then... But I'll compromise because I'm reasonable.


[legal disclaimer] Yes, I'm quite aware that the US does not acknowledge these obvious truths. That doesn't make them any less valid. [/legal disclaimer]
 
Back
Top Bottom