Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

The article is useless, the brief is not. See attached. NH goes to bat to protect our citizens. If you want to be in a state where the gun owners are protected, move to NH.
Credit to several people that I cannot name.

NEWS RELEASE​


Released by: John M. Formella, Attorney General

Subject: New Hampshire Files Brief Supporting Legal Challenge to Application of Massachusetts Gun Laws to New Hampshire Residents Temporarily Present in Massachusetts

Date: August 19, 2024

Contact: Brandon F. Chase, Assistant Attorney General

Civil Law Bureau, Litigation Unit

Brandon.F.Chase@doj.nh.gov | (603) 271-3650



Concord, NH – Attorney General John M. Formella announces that New Hampshire is filing an amicus curiae brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This brief supports a Lowell (Massachusetts) District Court ruling that found Massachusetts’ firearm regulations unconstitutional as applied to non-residents temporarily traveling to the state. The cases involve two New Hampshire residents who were each charged with carrying firearms without licenses in Massachusetts.

New Hampshire’s amicus brief supports the lower court’s decision and argues that Mass. Gen. Law 269, sec. 10(a) and Mass. Gen Law 140, sec. 131F unconstitutional as applied to two New Hampshire residents temporarily traveling across state lines. Given the frequent travel between New Hampshire and neighboring Massachusetts, the State of New Hampshire supports this ruling and argues that Granite Staters (or any non-Massachusetts residents) who are temporarily traveling to Massachusetts should not face potential felony convictions and imprisonment solely for lacking a Massachusetts gun license or permit.

“This brief is crucial because it stands up for the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not just for New Hampshire residents but for all law-abiding citizens traveling across state lines. By challenging Massachusetts’ restrictive firearm laws, we are affirming that constitutional freedoms should not be undermined by inconsistent and overly burdensome regulations,” said Attorney General Formella. “This is all about ensuring that responsible gun owners can protect themselves without fear of unjust legal consequences when they cross state borders. Upholding these rights is essential for safeguarding personal safety and reinforcing the principle that the Constitution must be respected and upheld nationwide.”

Key Points of New Hampshire’s Brief:

  • Constitutional Protection: The brief argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms for self-defense beyond one’s home. Massachusetts’ law, which makes it a felony for non-residents to carry firearms that they would be lawfully allowed to carry in their home state, infringes upon this right.
  • Historical Precedent: The brief notes that there is no historical precedent for such restrictive measures against non-residents. In fact, historical precedent supports such clear passage while carrying. The current Massachusetts law fails to meet historical standards required to justify significant burdens on Second Amendment rights.
  • Impact on Rights: The brief warns of the dangers of criminalizing lawful behavior across state lines, potentially leading to severe and unjust legal consequences for citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights while traveling.

New Hampshire's involvement reflects its commitment to protecting the rights of its residents and ensuring state laws do not unduly infringe upon constitutional freedoms. The Granite State’s amicus brief highlights the broader implications of the court's ruling, advocating for the protection of individual liberties and the necessity of ensuring that responsible gun owners can travel without fear of becoming a felon the moment that they travel over the Massachusetts border.



###​
 

Attachments

The article is chuck full of details. Driving "through" MA?

FOPA (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 926A) guarantees the right of a law-abiding person to transport an unloaded firearm between a location where he or she may legally carry it and a destination where he or she may also legally carry it, regardless of state or local laws along the route of travel that would otherwise apply.

If that was the case.
 
The new law going into effect will allow non residents to travel while carrying. Hopefully this case can also get to a point where it would negate the biggest issue someone carrying while driving through would run into. Standard Capacity magazines in the firearm.
 
Just traveling though the state shouldn’t be the focal point. There should be full faith and credit given so that the non-resident who may legally carry in his home state can therefore carry in any state. I thought that was what this case was about and not just traveling through the state. But I haven’t read the briefs. If it’s just traveling through the state, then it’s a meh case.
 
You’d have to wonder every gun, friendly state sued, Massachusetts or something different if they’d regret spending our money defending it? Especially with the budget problems, but you know some judge wouldn’t just merger the cases.

But it’s such a long contradicting law … each state could sue for something completely unrelated to the other and if they wanted to sue over things, they’d lose that really waste of core time in Massachusetts give the death by 1000 cuts..
The problem I see though is the Supreme Court would certify so many of these they already don’t accept all good ones…

Massachusetts can’t save itself were way pass that
 
design said:
Read the briefs, they are worth it.
Click to expand...
This - they fit an enormous amount of 2a case law into <6000 words.
As such it may not be the easiest read if you've never read a legal brief. However, that shouldn't discourage anyone since while it is densely packed, it is plainly written so a complete newbie should only need 15 minutes to skim or an hour to critically read (assuming the referenced documents are on hand or easily retrieved)
 
MGnoob said:
You’d have to wonder every gun, friendly state sued, Massachusetts or something different if they’d regret spending our money defending it? Especially with the budget problems, but you know some judge wouldn’t just merger the cases.

But it’s such a long contradicting law … each state could sue for something completely unrelated to the other and if they wanted to sue over things, they’d lose that really waste of core time in Massachusetts give the death by 1000 cuts..
The problem I see though is the Supreme Court would certify so many of these they already don’t accept all good ones…

Massachusetts can’t save itself were way pass that
Click to expand...
Since this is a controversy between states the Supreme Court would take great interest.
The SJC would be well advised to find in the favor of the defendants on an "as applied" basis in order to moot out any run to SCOTUS similar to Caetano.
 
design said:
The article is useless, the brief is not. See attached. NH goes to bat to protect our citizens. If you want to be in a state where the gun owners are protected, move to NH.
Credit to several people that I cannot name.

NEWS RELEASE​


Released by: John M. Formella, Attorney General

Subject: New Hampshire Files Brief Supporting Legal Challenge to Application of Massachusetts Gun Laws to New Hampshire Residents Temporarily Present in Massachusetts

Date: August 19, 2024

Contact: Brandon F. Chase, Assistant Attorney General

Civil Law Bureau, Litigation Unit

Brandon.F.Chase@doj.nh.gov | (603) 271-3650



Concord, NH – Attorney General John M. Formella announces that New Hampshire is filing an amicus curiae brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This brief supports a Lowell (Massachusetts) District Court ruling that found Massachusetts’ firearm regulations unconstitutional as applied to non-residents temporarily traveling to the state. The cases involve two New Hampshire residents who were each charged with carrying firearms without licenses in Massachusetts.

New Hampshire’s amicus brief supports the lower court’s decision and argues that Mass. Gen. Law 269, sec. 10(a) and Mass. Gen Law 140, sec. 131F unconstitutional as applied to two New Hampshire residents temporarily traveling across state lines. Given the frequent travel between New Hampshire and neighboring Massachusetts, the State of New Hampshire supports this ruling and argues that Granite Staters (or any non-Massachusetts residents) who are temporarily traveling to Massachusetts should not face potential felony convictions and imprisonment solely for lacking a Massachusetts gun license or permit.

“This brief is crucial because it stands up for the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, not just for New Hampshire residents but for all law-abiding citizens traveling across state lines. By challenging Massachusetts’ restrictive firearm laws, we are affirming that constitutional freedoms should not be undermined by inconsistent and overly burdensome regulations,” said Attorney General Formella. “This is all about ensuring that responsible gun owners can protect themselves without fear of unjust legal consequences when they cross state borders. Upholding these rights is essential for safeguarding personal safety and reinforcing the principle that the Constitution must be respected and upheld nationwide.”

Key Points of New Hampshire’s Brief:

  • Constitutional Protection: The brief argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms for self-defense beyond one’s home. Massachusetts’ law, which makes it a felony for non-residents to carry firearms that they would be lawfully allowed to carry in their home state, infringes upon this right.
  • Historical Precedent: The brief notes that there is no historical precedent for such restrictive measures against non-residents. In fact, historical precedent supports such clear passage while carrying. The current Massachusetts law fails to meet historical standards required to justify significant burdens on Second Amendment rights.
  • Impact on Rights: The brief warns of the dangers of criminalizing lawful behavior across state lines, potentially leading to severe and unjust legal consequences for citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights while traveling.

New Hampshire's involvement reflects its commitment to protecting the rights of its residents and ensuring state laws do not unduly infringe upon constitutional freedoms. The Granite State’s amicus brief highlights the broader implications of the court's ruling, advocating for the protection of individual liberties and the necessity of ensuring that responsible gun owners can travel without fear of becoming a felon the moment that they travel over the Massachusetts border.



###​
Click to expand...

So, what's the pathway here - Mass Supreme Court, Circuit Counts, ... where does NH win?

"Surely the Second Amendment’s protection of a person’s right to carry a firearm for self-defense is not so fragile as to allow Massachusetts to compel a New Hampshire citizen to choose between exercising his or her right to self-defense and visiting the Buffalo Wild Wings at the Pheasant Lane Mall..."


1724164713357.png
 
Admin said:
The article is chuck full of details. Driving "through" MA?

FOPA (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 926A) guarantees the right of a law-abiding person to transport an unloaded firearm between a location where he or she may legally carry it and a destination where he or she may also legally carry it, regardless of state or local laws along the route of travel that would otherwise apply.

If that was the case.
Click to expand...
NY and most N.E. puke states need to get a reminder.
 
Admin said:
FOPA (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 926A) guarantees the right of a law-abiding person to transport an unloaded firearm between a location where he or she may legally carry it and a destination where he or she may also legally carry it, regardless of state or local laws along the route of travel that would otherwise apply.

If that was the case.
Click to expand...
@Admin
1. It is NOT clear if FOPA works if you drive from NH into MA and back into NH. There is no good case law supporting this.
2. An unloaded firearm in a car's trunk is USELESS for self-protection.
3. MA is more dangerous than NH
4. Nationwide carry (if you are good at home, you are good everywhere, should be a thing)
5. Some of us have been threatened because of our jobs

-design
 
MaverickNH said:
So, what's the pathway here - Mass Supreme Court, Circuit Counts, ... where does NH win?

"Surely the Second Amendment’s protection of a person’s right to carry a firearm for self-defense is not so fragile as to allow Massachusetts to compel a New Hampshire citizen to choose between exercising his or her right to self-defense and visiting the Buffalo Wild Wings at the Pheasant Lane Mall..."


View attachment 910604
Click to expand...
No step on Buffalo Wild Wings!
 
Dupe

www.northeastshooters.com

Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

Update to Dr. Kang Lu’s case https://www.universalhub.com/2024/judge-tosses-gun-packing-doctors-challenge This guys got more balls and is more of a patriot than half of NES. I’m shocked no one seems to give a shit about his case. Probably because he's in outer space in that sovereign citizen...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
The NH AG is filing an amicus brief, not suing. It's still a state case and likely to remain that way.

pastera said:
Since this is a controversy between states the Supreme Court would take great interest.
The SJC would be well advised to find in the favor of the defendants on an "as applied" basis in order to moot out any run to SCOTUS similar to Caetano.
Click to expand...
 
design said:
@Admin
1. It is NOT clear if FOPA works if you drive from NH into MA and back into NH. There is no good case law supporting this.
2. An unloaded firearm in a car's trunk is USELESS for self-protection.
3. MA is more dangerous than NH
4. Nationwide carry (if you are good at home, you are good everywhere, should be a thing)
5. Some of us have been threatened because of our jobs

-design
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. The article linked had zero details so I had to assume the use case of traveling through.
 
NH should offer sanctuary and under no circumstances should they allow any extradition or cooperation with Mass Police, these guys just need to stay the F'k out of Mass
 
Totally different circumstances. This was an in state case that ended up at SCOTUS. What you're talking about is a resident of NH challenging a MA law directly to SCOTUS.

States have standing to sue each other and have the case heard directly by SCOTUS. ME and NH did that some years ago over a dispute about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

The reason that the NH AG is filing an amicus brief is because NH can't sue MA over a MA law.

pastera said:
Caetano
Public Defenders with a stripper as a client have very successfully taken 2A cases to SCOTUS and won bigly
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
Totally different circumstances. This was an in state case that ended up at SCOTUS. What you're talking about is a resident of NH challenging a MA law directly to SCOTUS.

States have standing to sue each other and have the case heard directly by SCOTUS. ME and NH did that some years ago over a dispute about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

The reason that the NH AG is filing an amicus brief is because NH can't sue MA over a MA law.
Click to expand...
www.law.cornell.edu

Controversies Between a State or Its Citizens and Foreign States/Citizens

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Click to expand...
 
This case has the potential to be a SCOTUS case. Depending on the outcome of the MA SJC opinion after the oral arguments. Hopefully, they will realize that the law disarms NH citizens from home to MA and once the person leaves MA and returns home. That could be the entire day for an uber driver.
 
I have not fully read the new MA law. Someone said that this allows non-residents to carry. If true, please post a page number or a section number. This is important to this case if true.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
120
lutstribe
L
Deport Maura bumper stickers on line
Replies
13
Views
727
Lank
Lank
Anyone want a can of Alcan AL-8 shotgun powder?
Replies
9
Views
188
Zappa
Zappa
Dear Maura: US judge tosses Illinois' ban on semiautomatic weapons
Replies
6
Views
492
expedition03
expedition03
Bill Allowing Armed Teachers, Staff Moving in West Virginia House
Replies
0
Views
9
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom