Hightower Hearing in front of the First Circuit Court Of Appeals June 6, 2012

I actually saw it on MDS. Not sure why the forum software didn't turn the URL in to a link, it usually does.

I wonder if there's a way to feed an mp3 into google voice. It would be a lot easier to discuss various points from the argument with a rough transcript.
 
Alan, as always, sounded like he was at the top of his game. The Commonwealth's lawyer seemed to do fairly well, though I'm slightly heartened a bit by them going way over on Alan's rebuttal time and allowing him time to clarify a good number of the issues.

With that said, as terra mentioned before, oral arguments are just a small part of what the court considers when deciding a case. How this one comes out is anyone's guess.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Alan, as always, sounded like he was at the top of his game. The Commonwealth's lawyer seemed to do fairly well, though I'm slightly heartened a bit by them going way over on Alan's rebuttal time and allowing him time to clarify a good number of the issues.

With that said, as terra mentioned before, oral arguments are just a small part of what the court considers when deciding a case. How this one comes out is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Did you hear Salinger late in his rebuttal about our characterization of open carry?
 
Thank you for the update on the case.

I wish the judges would have follow up on this statement by AAG Salinger:

AAG Salinger said:
[This type of case] calls for an individualized exercise of judgment with respect to a particular applicant to determine, again to use the Supreme Court's words, whether the person is law-abiding and sufficiently responsible to be trusted with carrying a gun in public . . . .

An example, lets say a police chief knows that somebody is a member of a violent gang. They've never been charged with a crime, never been convicted of a crime. No objective checklist can capture that person. But there is a good reason to believe that that person is running with a very dangerous crowd. Under Ms. Hightower's theory, the police chief would have to wait until that person commits a crime to deny them [a firearms license].
Click to expand...

Although the current discretionary suitability laws essentially gives CoPs the power to do this now, I was kind of shocked to hear him make this argument. It is hard to imagine such an argument getting a free pass with any other enumerated right. I certainly don't like the implications that his vision of CoPs discretion would have.
 
BigDaddyAl said:
Although the current discretionary suitability laws essentially gives CoPs the power to do this now, I was kind of shocked to hear him make this argument. It is hard to imagine such an argument getting a free pass with any other enumerated right. I certainly don't like the implications that his vision of CoPs discretion would have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was somewhat surprised Gura didn't jump on that one in rebuttal.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
That the panel focused on due process is a very good thing. This case is unique in that Hightower had a license, it was revoked and her guns was seized. All without any hearing, due process, or even allegation of dangerousness.

Depending upon one's expectations, this could turn out to be a very good case for us. I doubt the First Circuit will conclude that the second amendment extended outside the home. But I do think they'll take serious issue with the lack of due process in a way that makes a CLEO much more accountable for justifying their denial or revocation of a license. And that would be progress.
Click to expand...

It faces the same potential issue in my case where the Circuit Court of Appeal may decide it on narrower grounds than getting directly to the 2A determination. It's sort of like constitutional avoidance (the idea of disposing the case using statutory provisions rather than the constitution), except it's basically 2A constitutional avoidance.
 
Gray Peterson said:
It faces the same potential issue in my case where the Circuit Court of Appeal may decide it on narrower grounds than getting directly to the 2A determination. It's sort of like constitutional avoidance (the idea of disposing the case using statutory provisions rather than the constitution), except it's basically 2A constitutional avoidance.
Click to expand...
Yes, listening to the arguments, it was clear they were trying very hard to avoid the issue.

Everyone in that room needs a refresher course on the meaning of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
 
terraformer said:
Ah, you just saw the cal guns thread too.
Here it is with feeling (...and a link).

Case:11-2281, Hightower v City of Boston
Audio from today is now available: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/11-2281.mp3
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.

IANAL, but I did notice that the COMM2A representative continuously used terms like "essentially is", and "more or less"... was this done to intentionally to evade taking a position, or just how things came out?

In my professional career I've always been directed to avoid those phases as they tend to indicate weakness or uncertainty. To counter my point, I wasn't overly impressed with the opposition's statement(s) as they seemed to ramble, and make fuzzy arguments.

Overall, I couldn't get a read on the Judge. I'll stick to gambling on horses.

Just my two cents.
 
Gray Peterson said:
It faces the same potential issue in my case where the Circuit Court of Appeal may decide it on narrower grounds than getting directly to the 2A determination. It's sort of like constitutional avoidance (the idea of disposing the case using statutory provisions rather than the constitution), except it's basically 2A constitutional avoidance.
Click to expand...
While I no doubt support the goals of this case, IMHO maintaining the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and the principles of judicial restraint is far more important than the particular merits of any one case.

turbo89 said:
IANAL, but I did notice that the COMM2A representative continuously used terms like "essentially is", and "more or less"... was this done to intentionally to evade taking a position, or just how things came out?

In my professional career I've always been directed to avoid those phases as they tend to indicate weakness or uncertainty. To counter my point, I wasn't overly impressed with the opposition's statement(s) as they seemed to ramble, and make fuzzy arguments.
Click to expand...
It seems to me Gura was linking the pieces together to show the end result is similar conduct that has been rule unconstitutional in past case law.

Remember, the practice of law in common law legal systems is different from most other academic endeavors in that no one really cares about your original ideas--it matters what an authority (i.e., a court) decided in the past and whether it's similar to your current situation and case. It's all comparing and contrasting your case to other past cases to get the result you want. The plaintiff will say "My case is similar to case #1 because of reasons X, Y, and Z." The defendant will counter "This case is different from case #1 because of reasons A, B, and C."

And since your case is rarely exactly the same as a previous case (if it were, it probably would have been resolved quickly), when you're pushing the similarities, you have to use terms like "essentially the same" and "more or less the same" or you'll lose credibility in your argument when the opposing side highlights the distinctions. You can't say they're the same because they're not.
 
Now what would happen if we get a favorable outcome, i'm hoping in the lines of the discretionary issue being completely unconstitutional. how long do you think it would take for it to trickle down to all the towns. And how much BS are we gonna have to deal with and also what kinda hoops would we have to go threw again.
 
Sorry for the thread resurrection, but does anyone who was on this thread have a copy of the oral arguments that was posted? The court got rid of their copy and we linked to it instead of preserving the copy locally.
 
Can you check your copy and see if the states rebuttal is at the end? This ends with Gura's time ending. The AAG stood up and said something at the very end after Gura thanked the panel.
 

Similar threads

  • Sticky
The time to help is now.
Replies
4
Views
355
Comm2A
Comm2A
US Supreme Court OT 2019
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
29K
Waher
Waher
Comm2A and Black Guns Matter in MA week of 12/10/18
Replies
12
Views
2K
CatSnoutSoup
CatSnoutSoup
2014 Supreme Court Term
Replies
15
Views
9K
terraformer
terraformer
Comm2A has filed an amicus in a stun gun possession criminal case at the SJC
8 9 10
Replies
292
Views
68K
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom