Kang Lu v. Maura Healey et al.

National Reciprocity May Be Simpler Than We Thought

Dear Friends and 2A Supporters,

In 1957, Eleanor Roosevelt was granted a "License to Carry Pistol," and "to possess the same" by the "Judge of County Court," from Dutchess County New York State. (See following articles.)

The important point is that this license was made by the Judicial Branch of government, not by the executive branch of government, from which all contemporary "LTCs" are currently issued.

This distinction is important, because Art. 4. states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." See also 28 USC 1738, 28 U.S. Code § 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit.

So licenses issued by the Judicial Branch must be given "Full Faith and Credit" by each State. This is NOT true for licenses issued by the Police Department (Executive Branch), which as we all know are merely "professional licensing" required in "specified occupations," (see 803 CMR 2.01 and MGL 6 § 172B.5) and it's not covered in the text of Article 4.

So maybe, and I am theorizing here.... The way to National Reciprocity is merely for an individual to obtain a declaratory judgment from any state court affirming his or her sanity, competence, and suitability for "carrying a firearm," or "bearing arms" for that matter.

See Articles:
www.huffpost.com

LOOK: Eleanor Roosevelt's Pistol License -- And The Fascinating Reason She Had It

LOOK: Eleanor Roosevelt's Pistol License -- And The Fascinating Reason She Had It
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
slate.com

Eleanor Roosevelt's License to Pack Heat

The Vault is Slate's new history blog. Like us on Facebook; follow us on Twitter @slatevault; find us on Tumblr. Find out more about what this space is...
slate.com slate.com
 
Lawyer types please weigh in on this. I can see NH moving the P&R to Judicial just to F with MA. If this is correct NH could be issuing nationally recognized permits in a matter of months.

And I'd have no problem paying a fee to NH to do this.

Print them on gold plated cards with a lifetime no expiration. Because what's the fun if we can't rub it in.
 
Dr. Kang Lu said:
National Reciprocity May Be Simpler Than We Thought

Dear Friends and 2A Supporters,

In 1957, Eleanor Roosevelt was granted a "License to Carry Pistol," and "to possess the same" by the "Judge of County Court," from Dutchess County New York State. (See following articles.)

The important point is that this license was made by the Judicial Branch of government, not by the executive branch of government, from which all contemporary "LTCs" are currently issued.

This distinction is important, because Art. 4. states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." See also 28 USC 1738, 28 U.S. Code § 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit.

So licenses issued by the Judicial Branch must be given "Full Faith and Credit" by each State. This is NOT true for licenses issued by the Police Department (Executive Branch), which as we all know are merely "professional licensing" required in "specified occupations," (see 803 CMR 2.01 and MGL 6 § 172B.5) and it's not covered in the text of Article 4.

So maybe, and I am theorizing here.... The way to National Reciprocity is merely for an individual to obtain a declaratory judgment from any state court affirming his or her sanity, competence, and suitability for "carrying a firearm," or "bearing arms" for that matter.

See Articles:
www.huffpost.com

LOOK: Eleanor Roosevelt's Pistol License -- And The Fascinating Reason She Had It

LOOK: Eleanor Roosevelt's Pistol License -- And The Fascinating Reason She Had It
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
slate.com

Eleanor Roosevelt's License to Pack Heat

The Vault is Slate's new history blog. Like us on Facebook; follow us on Twitter @slatevault; find us on Tumblr. Find out more about what this space is...
slate.com slate.com
Click to expand...
Keep theorizing, as to myself as a legal layperson, most laws are overturned because someone researched an issue and presented new legal theories. Do not be discouraged!
 
So what I need is a court order stating;
42!, having establish his intent to exercise his 2a rights as provided in the Bill of Rights, and having establish that there is no prohibiting factor under the federal laws of the United States, shall henceforth be permitted to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, throughout the United states, in all places, and at all times permitted by the federal laws of the United States. Until such time as this court reverses, or otherwise modifies, this ruling, or it is establish through the full due process of law that he is no longer permitted under the federal laws of the United States.
Under article 4 section 1 of the US Constitution all states are bound to uphold this judicial ruling.

Now where can I get a NH Judge that will order this? [laugh]

If I could get this, I would, even if it was just to see what the reaction from MA would be.
 
pastera said:
I see licensing get tossed before judicial issued permits get 50 state recognition.
Click to expand...
But that's the point, it doesn't need state recognition. The constitution requires it of the state. Take that away and we are back to the days of outrunning warrants and court orders by just leaving the state. It would take action on the Fed level to undo this loophole.
 
42! said:
But that's the point, it doesn't need state recognition. The constitution requires it of the state. Take that away and we are back to the days of outrunning warrants and court orders by just leaving the state. It would take action on the Fed level to undo this loophole.
Click to expand...
Agree but that solution still allows the government to enforce licenses at some level.

My position:
The government has no constitutional power to restrict, regulate or otherwise encumbere the right to both keep and bear arms.
Placing the power to decide how, what and where you may carry into the hands of an unelected judiciary is not a step up in freedom.
 
pastera said:
Agree but that solution still allows the government to enforce licenses at some level.

My position:
The government has no constitutional power to restrict, regulate or otherwise encumbere the right to both keep and bear arms.
Placing the power to decide how, what and where you may carry into the hands of an unelected judiciary is not a step up in freedom.
Click to expand...
true, but we are eating an elephant.
A small change can diminish the perceived importance of something larger, thus reducing the push back on the next step. It's how we got where we are, so we can use that to get back to where we need to be. One bite at a time.
 
42! said:
true, but we are eating an elephant.
A small change can diminish the perceived importance of something larger, thus reducing the push back on the next step. It's how we got where we are, so we can use that to get back to where we need to be. One bite at a time.
Click to expand...

Really, we're eating an elephant and a donkey. 😁

Medium rare, please...
 
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...

Briefly, when I cared about such things as carrying in MA without a license, this was a consideration!

Perfect example. Bravo!
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Anything happen to this case? I haven't heard anything.
Click to expand...
From UniversalHub dot com

By adamg on Thu, 01/11/2024 - 1:14pm

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit by a now former radiologist over the state's gun laws, saying the Supreme Court still gives states the rights to regulate guns and besides, he really needs to first finish his appeal in state court on his convictions for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Kang Lu, whose determination to always pack a gun has lost him his right to practice medicine in most states - because he would routinely check "No" when asked if he had been convicted of any crimes - and which saw him arrested at the Canadian border, sued Massachusetts in federal court in September, arguing the Second Amendment gives him an absolute right to carry a gun without worrying about state gun-registration requirements.
But in a ruling today, US District Court Judge Angel Kelley said no, the Second Amendment does not do that.
"Lu's claim challenging licensing requirements is not viable under the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen which explicitly upheld such licensing schemes," she wrote, referring to a 2022 Supreme Court decision that said the Second Amendment gives American the right to pack heat in public - but which did not overrule the general idea of state gun-licensing regulations.
She added that even aside from that, she had to dismiss Lu's case - which he brought by himself without a lawyer - because he is currently appealing, to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, his convictions last year in Hampden Superior Court. Federal courts only rarely intercede in actions before state courts, and never when there is no indication that the state proceedings are an outgrowth of harassment or that state judges will not comport themselves according to federal constitutional limits, and there is no evidence Massachusetts courts are trampling on Lu's rights, she wrote.
Kelley also tossed requests by a variety of gun fans, including a convicted gun runner now serving in the New Hampshire legislature, to join Lu's case, because with her main ruling, there is no longer a case to join.
 
appraiser said:
From UniversalHub dot com

By adamg on Thu, 01/11/2024 - 1:14pm

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit by a now former radiologist over the state's gun laws, saying the Supreme Court still gives states the rights to regulate guns and besides, he really needs to first finish his appeal in state court on his convictions for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Kang Lu, whose determination to always pack a gun has lost him his right to practice medicine in most states - because he would routinely check "No" when asked if he had been convicted of any crimes - and which saw him arrested at the Canadian border, sued Massachusetts in federal court in September, arguing the Second Amendment gives him an absolute right to carry a gun without worrying about state gun-registration requirements.
But in a ruling today, US District Court Judge Angel Kelley said no, the Second Amendment does not do that.
"Lu's claim challenging licensing requirements is not viable under the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen which explicitly upheld such licensing schemes," she wrote, referring to a 2022 Supreme Court decision that said the Second Amendment gives American the right to pack heat in public - but which did not overrule the general idea of state gun-licensing regulations.
She added that even aside from that, she had to dismiss Lu's case - which he brought by himself without a lawyer - because he is currently appealing, to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, his convictions last year in Hampden Superior Court. Federal courts only rarely intercede in actions before state courts, and never when there is no indication that the state proceedings are an outgrowth of harassment or that state judges will not comport themselves according to federal constitutional limits, and there is no evidence Massachusetts courts are trampling on Lu's rights, she wrote.
Kelley also tossed requests by a variety of gun fans, including a convicted gun runner now serving in the New Hampshire legislature, to join Lu's case, because with her main ruling, there is no longer a case to join.
Click to expand...
I love scumbag judges and politicians lie about what Heller and Bruen actually held -
Bruen said:
Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63
Click to expand...
Heller said:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Click to expand...

The is no holding by the Supreme Court that licensing schemes are constitutional.
The closest is footnote 9 in Bruen
footnote 9 said:
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicantsto show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarilyprevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their SecondAmendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes ,which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cant-well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
I love scumbag judges and politicians lie about what Heller and Bruen actually held -



The is no holding by the Supreme Court that licensing schemes are constitutional.
The closest is footnote 9 in Bruen
[quote="footnote 9]
To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicantsto show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarilyprevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their SecondAmendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes ,which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cant-well v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I said almost the exact same thing when that decision first landed here
 

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
11
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom