OK. I just pasted the words (not mine) up there, with highlighting. So, what meanings do these words have now, after the Bruen case and now THIS case?
I'm asking. Is the law still applicable?
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Guns n Gadgets - Firearm Permit Process Ruled Unconstitutional!
- Thread starter Eddie_Valiant
- Start date
OK. I just pasted the words (not mine) up there, with highlighting. So, what meanings do these words have now, after the Bruen case and now THIS case?
I'm asking. Is the law still applicable?
Mesatchornug
NES Member
And thank you for that. Genuinely.
The law remains in force until they're made to stop enforcing it. The state's position that this 2A/Art17 protects a collective right is growing weaker.
These things take time.
pastera
NES Member
Mesatchornug sums it up correctly
The state's position is that guns are a collective right and Bruen can be interpreted as an individual right to a license to keep and bear but to do so for a collective purpose that can be regulated by the state.
But SCOTUS put themselves into a bind when they defined arms but then in dicta said certain bearable arms like machine guns could be legislated.
So now when they take an assault weapons case they need to thread the needle in order to find a way to fit the NFA into traditional regulation of arms (but we all know it simply isn't)
Civil rights get affirmed through the courts the same way a sturdy house is built: step by step, slowly and deliberately and carefully. The NAACP realized that sixty or seventy years ago and showed how lawfare should be done, and now it's our turn.
If you don't do it that way, you get things done quicker but it's more like a trailer home: good enough in the short term, but shoddy and without a proper legal foundation. That's how Roe v Wade was.
I'd rather our rights be protected the way the NAACP did it, even if it takes longer. Layers of precedent make our rights more durable.
pastera
NES Member
Great explanation
Many here want a broad overarching case at SCOTUS to throw out 90 years of infringements. There is no way SCOTUS could possibly detail out the full "penumbra" of the 2nd in a single case so any ambiguity they don't have room to extinguish becomes the next chink in the armor attacked by the anti's. We see this with each of the pillar 2a cases where states take the court's statements that a particular case does not answer a specific question as an admission that SCOTUS declares carte blanch permission to legislate that area.
So, who is the "they" here, and how do they make Massachusetts stop enforcing it?
OK, so which building block is this case?
Again, which piece is this "success" fixing? And for who?
pastera
NES Member
Okay, so now district court judges are applying Bruen and you still act like there is no effect or movement.
What evidence would convince you that SCOTUS opinions actually have effects on local cases?
Courts move in small increments
This is a more than a small incremental change.
Or will no amount of evidence change you mind until Maura comes to your house and gives you a select fire AR and a blow job.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Officially? "They" == fedgov, specifically SCOTUS.
How do they make MA change its behavior? Suddenly, we're reminded why the Courts are called "the least dangerous branch." To paraphrase, "John [Roberts] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
That is, their only enforcement mechanism is to keep reversing lower court decisions, unless and until the executive branch sends the national guard or the legislative starts tightening the purse strings.
Last edited:
pdm
NES Member
I mean, I wouldn't say no to that...
I do? I was asking a question here, not acting in any other way.
???
Not sure where this is coming from either.
Who does it apply to? Just the guy in Holyoke? The entire state? The entire country? I don't know, which is why I asked.
WTF are you talking about? Started early with the bourbon?
pastera
NES Member
Did you watch the video or read the decision posted by Niel? Real question.
The case is a district court judge ordering a town to give an LTC to a person with two CWOF cases - one each for domestic violence and possession with intent to distribute.
The opinion is Bruen based and tosses out the discretion based refusal to issue an license to a person for suitability.
The way you write your posts makes it seem like you are making a sarcastic declaration rather than asking a specific question.
If I misinterpreted this then I am sorry for my flippant response
It is district court to it applies to only this person.
However it is influential in other cases within the state - other courts are not held to the same review standard but would have to explain why this decision is wrong if they rule differently in similar circumstances.
Over time you have pushed back when myself and others have detailed out how a particular case moves the needle towards more 2a freedom.
Each time you ask for how it effects the grand picture even though we try to make it clear that the grand picture is built from individual pixels and not broad brush strokes. It's worse than watching grass grow because it's even slower.
But here we are with multiple district court judges handing down rulings that (mostly) incorporate Bruen correctly and clearly. Some of it comes with wording that shows the judge is angry that their hands are tied by Bruen and written in hopes of creating an appeal that will limit Bruen but they still were forced to not screw just one person over this one time. And that is progress.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
I hear you. This time, he seems to be reading the decision and trying to understand. I think the best we can do is all
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
and have our own "beer summit"Yes. This one isn't bad.
Yes.
Yes.
No. It was strictly a question.
No problem. It's NES, most everything is BS, so it takes a lot of weeding out to get some truth nuggets out.
Thank you! That is what I was wondering.
Even more useful, actual information! Thanks again.
True enough. But though I might be the only one asking, I am certain I am not the only one wondering. Every time, it seems like something is happening, but then, come to find out, it is just for that guy, or just for one state, or whatever. You might know this stuff, but most people don't study or follow court stuff. I just like the "news" and "facts", with a little explanation on how far or near they apply.
I understand that. But it varies every time, from California to Holyoke, and the relief provided by cases varies with it. The trouble is, they (or you?) don't say who is affected or where.
Which is great. But again, just for this individual, the state, the district, the circuit, or who? (Asking in general, not on this, that is clarified now.)
I must have missed that on most, but did see that here. I wonder who appointed this judge.
Last edited:
I'll take just the AR thanks.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,768
- Likes
- 34,012
The more cases like this are won, even if not precedent setting, the less "unthinkable" a win of a LTC denial/revocation appeal becomes.
Until now, the prevailing attitude of the courts seems to have been "These appeals are a waste of time, but we still have to go through the process". That is changing as more cases are being decided on Bruen, and the argument of "we are depriving you of an administrative license, not a right" seems to be losing its cachet.
As to broad appeals - Courts are often reluctant to alter the status quo, and some even more so when doing so means siding with gun owners. A broad based appeal like "throw out every aspect of a new gun law" feels good to those who are wronged by the law, however, it also gives the court a menu of hooks on which it can hang an adverse decision. A focused case dealing with one specific issue that makes a "results oriented" decision harder to justify has a better chance of winning.
That's why Comm2a focused on permanent resident alien / green card holders in the non-citizen case. Sure, we could have recruited plaintiffs here on student visas or ganted legal asylum, however, the case was "tighter" using plaintiffs permanent resident status. Would we have won if we found some students over 21 who were here on student visas who wanted to buy handguns? Maybe, but less likely - and if we tried and lost, the precdent could have blocked action on behalf of green card holders if the decision was broadly worded.
Until now, the prevailing attitude of the courts seems to have been "These appeals are a waste of time, but we still have to go through the process". That is changing as more cases are being decided on Bruen, and the argument of "we are depriving you of an administrative license, not a right" seems to be losing its cachet.
As to broad appeals - Courts are often reluctant to alter the status quo, and some even more so when doing so means siding with gun owners. A broad based appeal like "throw out every aspect of a new gun law" feels good to those who are wronged by the law, however, it also gives the court a menu of hooks on which it can hang an adverse decision. A focused case dealing with one specific issue that makes a "results oriented" decision harder to justify has a better chance of winning.
That's why Comm2a focused on permanent resident alien / green card holders in the non-citizen case. Sure, we could have recruited plaintiffs here on student visas or ganted legal asylum, however, the case was "tighter" using plaintiffs permanent resident status. Would we have won if we found some students over 21 who were here on student visas who wanted to buy handguns? Maybe, but less likely - and if we tried and lost, the precdent could have blocked action on behalf of green card holders if the decision was broadly worded.
Last edited:
pastera
NES Member
As long as we have permits we will have suitability
There is no objective argument for a permit in conjunction with point of purchase background checks unless permits allow for a middle ground, grey area of prohibitions above and beyond the federal laws.
Even in true shall issue states, what purpose does a permit serve?
None, unless it is done in a manner to skip federal NICS checks any permitting scheme is simply a method to deny the right to bear to the edge crowds.
Therefore permit laws will always and only serve to dissuade and deny the lawful from full enjoyment of their rights. The inclusion of suitability verbiage in permit schemes simply enhances the effectiveness of the schemes true motive - disarming the lawful public.
As far as my point to no objective argument for pernits, it is true. If a person is safe enough to freely interact in public in a country where guns outnumber the populus then those persons aren't truly restricted from having a gun. We trust that they will comply voluntarily. Those that do comply are not dangerous enough to prohibit them from ownership, those that don't are too dangerous to be left in public.
pastera
NES Member
Pretty close but answer this
Do we walk around in public with our firearm drawn finger on the trigger?
You do that when driving in public.
Average vehicle is 4100 pounds (across cars and light trucks)
At 30mph a 4100 lbs vehicle has about 123k ft-lbs of kinetic energy
Do I believe you should be required to have a license, no.
But having laws covering road safety is fine and prohibiting certain persons for not adhering to those laws is fine.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,768
- Likes
- 34,012
Yup. All the issuing authority has to do is "deny because of potential danger" and the applicant must prove innocence of pre-crime.
pastera
NES Member
That's what my post that led to @milktree's further question (drivers license) was about.
Are permits constitutional?
I think not but that question was specifically not answered in Bruen where they only answered the question if a person has the right to bear in public.
Some people believe that because permits were not struck down in Bruen that they are constitutional, but Heller, McDonald nor Bruen speak to permits. They only speak to the right to both keep and bear arms, and tangentially some clear edge cases of the rights limits.
Bruen's footnote 9 clearly outlines that where shall issue permits are presumptively constitutional they "do not rule out constitutional challenges" because "any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends"
So the answer is no one knows exactly where the line lies between constitutional and an abusive scheme.
Reality is that IF you are going to have laws of use and restriction of ANYTHING, and you don't have the ability to instantly check a person's statis in this regard, then a permit/license system is nessisary. That was a major motivator for drivers licensing and firearms licensing (yes, there were/are other factors for the adoption of both). This is not support or opposition to either, just a statement of reality and history. For firearms licensing, one of those "other" factors was/is control and/or racism through discretion/suitability.
BUT, the major motivator of adherence to the law fails as a licensing requirement once you have the ability to near-instantly check a person's status. Of course this brings up the question of when is a status check allowable. Is it only with probable cause, reasonable suspicion, mere possession, or only during a transfer/transaction (this would run the risk of becoming a registration database)?
I don't think restrictions on 2a will ever completely go away. Even with the very valid argument that if a person is safe enough to walk freely in society then they are safe enough to possess a gun, I just don't think this will ever become reality. And we have to live in the real world.
So would I support state licensing, yes but only under very strict conditions. First is it cannot exceed any Fed restrictions, it's free to have less, but not more. It absolutely must be shall issue and must be done so in a timely manner and easily accessible place. And it must, absolutely stand in for any purchase based background check. It cannot have any discretion and must have reciprocity with all other states. I doubt this would ever happen.
On the other hand, having an instant background check, NOT THE WAY IT IS TODAY, might be a viable alternative IF we are staying with the idea that there will be 2a restriction. It would have to be near-instant and eliminate any waiting period, they need to fix the appeal process, and there needs to be real accountability of those that report data to the system for any mistakes. The default on a "no response" has to be approval. It would have to be limited to new purchases at dealers for a number of reasons. First is just practicality, exposing the systgem to just anyone is a recipy for disaster. And second, is that expecting the average Joe to maintain accuracy and integrity of the process is a fantasy.
In the end, COULD either system work, possibly, but WOULD it work, probably not given reality.
Will I get flamed for trying to take a real world look at the the situation (even though I've offered no definitive opinion), DEFINITELY.
BUT, the major motivator of adherence to the law fails as a licensing requirement once you have the ability to near-instantly check a person's status. Of course this brings up the question of when is a status check allowable. Is it only with probable cause, reasonable suspicion, mere possession, or only during a transfer/transaction (this would run the risk of becoming a registration database)?
I don't think restrictions on 2a will ever completely go away. Even with the very valid argument that if a person is safe enough to walk freely in society then they are safe enough to possess a gun, I just don't think this will ever become reality. And we have to live in the real world.
So would I support state licensing, yes but only under very strict conditions. First is it cannot exceed any Fed restrictions, it's free to have less, but not more. It absolutely must be shall issue and must be done so in a timely manner and easily accessible place. And it must, absolutely stand in for any purchase based background check. It cannot have any discretion and must have reciprocity with all other states. I doubt this would ever happen.
On the other hand, having an instant background check, NOT THE WAY IT IS TODAY, might be a viable alternative IF we are staying with the idea that there will be 2a restriction. It would have to be near-instant and eliminate any waiting period, they need to fix the appeal process, and there needs to be real accountability of those that report data to the system for any mistakes. The default on a "no response" has to be approval. It would have to be limited to new purchases at dealers for a number of reasons. First is just practicality, exposing the systgem to just anyone is a recipy for disaster. And second, is that expecting the average Joe to maintain accuracy and integrity of the process is a fantasy.
In the end, COULD either system work, possibly, but WOULD it work, probably not given reality.
Will I get flamed for trying to take a real world look at the the situation (even though I've offered no definitive opinion), DEFINITELY.
pdm
NES Member
If you are trying to analogize firearms licensing to driving licenses, it would have to only apply to the carrying of firearms in public. It would not be valid to require it for purchase or ownership. You do not need a driver's license to own a car. You need it to drive it on a public way. And you can drive all you want on private property without a license. When I wanted to start shooting, I only cared about going to the range, etc. I wanted to do something with my dad who had been on the high school rifle club, I didn't care about carrying it. But Massachusetts made me care, because of the retardo system they had. So since I wanted standard sized magazines and an AR-15, it was a carry license for me. If I could have just gone to the store, bought stuff and taken it home in a box, I probably would never have started carrying in the beginning.
[edit] And now that I think about it, I would have saved sooo much money on holsters...
You missed the point. That being that for the practical application of the law (separate from whether the law is right) a license is required simple because there was, at the original time, no other practical means to verify compliance. What that compliance is or what the laws are is dependent on what is being regulated and not relevant to the point. It's similar to professional licensing in that one point of the license is practical verification of compliance with the relevant laws. Whether its pipes, electrical, or a doctor, the license was/is intended as a way to verify compliance/qualification, which obviously differs across different types, without having to look into the specifics and details each and every time. Licensing is a shortcut.
As for your issue, you could have solved it easily by moving to New Hampshire. My AR has a bayonet lug!
Not because I need it, but, as an escapee from the PRMA, I now could. Come on Maura, come and get me. ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,768
- Likes
- 34,012
What exactly are you saying?
