Third Massachusetts Judge Rules Suitability Unconstitutional

appraiser said:
I don't know if you've read up on the judge in that case that we're all talking about but when he was a investigator or something in another department he got into a beef with someone in Boston and shot the guy. so he knows first hand about second amendment rights
Click to expand...
Or, he knows first hand that some people are more special than others.
 
aphextwin11 said:
Hell yeah, ripping it up on a Thursday [cheers] - make sure to hydrate and don't drive anywhere
Click to expand...
I got to go to the ear doctor on Friday. I’m gonna ask her to touch my penis prescribe some erythromycin… not f***ing around anymore..

I have a driven in weeks can’t see or hear…


But I could piss clean that helps anything

My question is they want to do a hair test? I don’t know where they’re gonna find that.

They need a pencil size diameter of hair. There’s only one place I can think of where they find that and they’re all gray.
 
MGnoob said:
I got to go to the ear doctor on Friday. I’m gonna ask her to touch my penis prescribe some erythromycin… not f***ing around anymore..
Click to expand...

Uh Oh Omg GIF by ESPN
 
MGnoob said:
I got to go to the ear doctor on Friday. I’m gonna ask her to touch my penis prescribe some erythromycin… not f***ing around anymore..

I have a driven in weeks can’t see or hear…


But I could piss clean that helps anything

My question is they want to do a hair test? I don’t know where they’re gonna find that.

They need a pencil size diameter of hair. There’s only one place I can think of where they find that and they’re all gray.
Click to expand...
sounds like a really complicated condition indeed. but, still not clear, why should penis be in the ear? or is it because the pencil size?
 
MGnoob said:
I got to go to the ear doctor on Friday. I’m gonna ask her to touch my penis prescribe some erythromycin… not f***ing around anymore..

I have a driven in weeks can’t see or hear…


But I could piss clean that helps anything

My question is they want to do a hair test? I don’t know where they’re gonna find that.

They need a pencil size diameter of hair. There’s only one place I can think of where they find that and they’re all gray.
Click to expand...
Started drinking early?
 
pastera said:
That's what a good lawyer is for...
Click to expand...
So, even if they are not on the clock (not getting paid by the client), they are remembering every client, and also have access to every bit of news, and will notify clients when there is a match? Or do you mean something else? I guess I never really interacted with lawyers, so don't know how that works.
 
Coyote33 said:
So, even if they are not on the clock (not getting paid by the client), they are remembering every client, and also have access to every bit of news, and will notify clients when there is a match? Or do you mean something else? I guess I never really interacted with lawyers, so don't know how that works.
Click to expand...
There are legal databases that they subscribe to.
Not every case is in those databases but anything on an appellate level is.
A good lawyer, or his team, knows how to search out related cases I need those databases.
 
Picton said:
The idea is that prior decisions will need to be re-litigated in light of the new Bruen standard.

To the extent that it's a MA judge admitting (even insisting) that the Bruen standard needs to be applied, it's a great thing. But it's not like this judge snapped her fingers and invalidated a whole bunch of MA gun laws or something.
Click to expand...

It's still encouraging to see. The judge in Canjura essentially admitted his hands were tied by Bruen.
 
dcmdon said:
It's still encouraging to see. The judge in Canjura essentially admitted his hands were tied by Bruen.
Click to expand...
I didn't read the district level documents but the SJC stuff pretty much is - Games over guys, here's how we need to play if we want to keep any gun control at all in place.

While there are vague hints about guns being treated differently a lower court would need to work very hard to twist around both Bruen and Canjura.

Two parts are a boon to us
An arm that is easier to deploy is only a benefit to a defender since an attacker know he will need his weapon.
An arm that is easier to deploy is no more dangerous than other similar arms.

I can see Canjura being cited across many ban states
 
pastera said:
There are legal databases that they subscribe to.
Not every case is in those databases but anything on an appellate level is.
A good lawyer, or his team, knows how to search out related cases I need those databases.
Click to expand...
I understand that lawyers do what lawyers do. But if the case is a year or two old, and closed out, and nobody is paying them, are they really going to go back and dig this up if the client is no longer involved with the lawyer?
 
Coyote33 said:
I understand that lawyers do what lawyers do. But if the case is a year or two old, and closed out, and nobody is paying them, are they really going to go back and dig this up if the client is no longer involved with the lawyer?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's precisely what they're being paid to do.

A good friend of mine who went to law school was surprised that the courses there weren't all about courtroom practice or the law in general; many of them were about research. How to do it, how to find cases that support you, how to present that research to a judge.

It's not like they're spending hours in the law library. Lexis/Nexis has been around for thirty years, offering searchable databases.
 
pastera said:
I didn't read the district level documents but the SJC stuff pretty much is - Games over guys, here's how we need to play if we want to keep any gun control at all in place.

While there are vague hints about guns being treated differently a lower court would need to work very hard to twist around both Bruen and Canjura.

Two parts are a boon to us
An arm that is easier to deploy is only a benefit to a defender since an attacker know he will need his weapon.
An arm that is easier to deploy is no more dangerous than other similar arms.

I can see Canjura being cited across many ban states
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot. I hadn't made the jump to the fact that Canjura essentially applies Bruen to MA at the highest state court level; and that by extension Canjura applies also to guns in MA. Duh!!. I hadn't considered that. So, it's not unreasonable to think that Canjura will be cited in gun cases in the future in MA.

Other states may want to reference Canjura, but it doesn't have any authority outside MA
 
Picton said:
Yes. That's precisely what they're being paid to do.

A good friend of mine who went to law school was surprised that the courses there weren't all about courtroom practice or the law in general; many of them were about research. How to do it, how to find cases that support you, how to present that research to a judge.

It's not like they're spending hours in the law library. Lexis/Nexis has been around for thirty years, offering searchable databases.
Click to expand...

These old cases are as binding as laws written by the legislature and signed by the governor. It's called legal precedent and creates Case Law, as opposed to statute law.

A decision only applies to the jurisdiction the court is in.

A state court decision is binding in that state.

A federal district court or appeals court decision applies in that district.

A Supreme Court decision applies to the entire country.
 
Picton said:
Yes. That's precisely what they're being paid to do.

A good friend of mine who went to law school was surprised that the courses there weren't all about courtroom practice or the law in general; many of them were about research. How to do it, how to find cases that support you, how to present that research to a judge.

It's not like they're spending hours in the law library. Lexis/Nexis has been around for thirty years, offering searchable databases.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood me. I was replying to the post where it was said old, closed cases could be retried. Those cases are closed, and nobody is being paid to do anything with them. Or do cases just stay open all the time, going forward? That is not how I understood it to be.
 
Coyote33 said:
I think you misunderstood me. I was replying to the post where it was said old, closed cases could be retried. Those cases are closed, and nobody is being paid to do anything with them. Or do cases just stay open all the time, going forward? That is not how I understood it to be.
Click to expand...

Oh. I did misunderstand!

No, I think they'd probably need to be brought before the court again, which the original plaintiff/appellant would have to do? I'm not sure, honestly.
 
pastera said:
For which they got bitch slapped in Caetano.
They specifically call it out in Canjura.
Click to expand...
That was a surprising 8:0 unanimous ruling. Even the leftards (except the one who had to recuse) understood the implication of letting that ruling stand. Of course, the leftards on the court today, believe the gov't can order private companies to censor speech that the gov't doesn't like because the internet did not exist in 1790. Today's SCOTUS would not have been unanimous. It would have been 6:3.
 
inkdesigner said:
Except in those states that just decide to ignore them
Click to expand...
Bingo. CA, NY, MA NJ, all ignored Bruen. They simply rewrote the laws and enforced the same way as before. Their goals is to force 2A advocacy groups to spend $Millions fighting them in 100's of jurisdictions across the country. They are doing this because they believe there will eventually be a communist majority SCOTUS that will obliterate all constitutional rights. They will do they by claiming there is a "public safety" exception for all rights. Note that every democrat candidate claims there is a "right to safety."
 
fishgutzy said:
Bingo. CA, NY, MA NJ, all ignored Bruen. They simply rewrote the laws and enforced the same way as before. Their goals is to force 2A advocacy groups to spend $Millions fighting them in 100's of jurisdictions across the country. They are doing this because they believe there will eventually be a communist majority SCOTUS that will obliterate all constitutional rights. They will do they by claiming there is a "public safety" exception for all rights. Note that every democrat candidate claims there is a "right to safety."
Click to expand...
While both Heller and Bruen involved handguns, Second Amendment protections subsume more than just firearms. See Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 411-412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns constitute arms under Second Amendment). Indeed, "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Heller, 554 U.S. at 582.
Click to expand...

Rather, the "central component" of the Second Amendment is the "inherent right of self-defense," which "guarantees to 'all Americans' the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions" (citation omitted). Bruen, supra at 29, 70. See Heller, supra at 581, 599, 628.
Click to expand...

Even if the Commonwealth presented some evidence switchblades are, in fact, more likely to be used for criminal purposes, and it did not, Bruen expressly forecloses any means-ends scrutiny. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 19.
Click to expand...
Setting aside any question whether switchblades are in common use today for lawful purposes,6 we conclude switchblades are "arms" for Second Amendment purposes. Therefore, the carrying of switchblades is presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
In the most basic sense, all weapons are "dangerous" because they are designed for the purpose of bodily assault or defense. See Caetano, 577 U.S. at 418 (Alito, J., concurring). As such, general dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant where the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for self-defense. See id. Consequently, spring-loaded folding knives cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are, in everyday terms, "dangerous." At the very least, for purposes of this analysis, "dangerous" weapons must feature uniquely dangerous qualities that are disproportionate to their use for self-defense.
Click to expand...
The legislatures threw a hissy fit and the courts needed to clean it up - Case law is building in the correct direction.
 

Attachments

pastera said:
There are legal databases that they subscribe to.
Not every case is in those databases but anything on an appellate level is.
A good lawyer, or his team, knows how to search out related cases I need those databases.
Click to expand...

I run python scraping scripts. An automated bot that's half impolite search engine and half conditional indexer. I can set it to send me alerts if certain words show up in news, public records, NES, craigslist, facebook, etc.

I'm sure good lawyers have a data scientist on staff.
 
whatluck said:
I run python scraping scripts. An automated bot that's half impolite search engine and half conditional indexer. I can set it to send me alerts if certain words show up in news, public records, NES, craigslist, facebook, etc.

I'm sure good lawyers have a data scientist on staff.
Click to expand...

They may, but I think most just hire consulting firms to do all that analysis for them, often in support of a testifying expert. Case research is junior lawyer work though.
 
fishgutzy said:
They are doing this because they believe there will eventually be a communist majority SCOTUS that will obliterate all constitutional rights
Click to expand...
Not very likely at this point with the incoming Trump presidency.

fishgutzy said:
. They will do they by claiming there is a "public safety" exception for all rights. Note that every democrat candidate claims there is a "right to safety."
Click to expand...
Unless of course it means "overpolicing marginalized communities", "mass incarceration", or "perpetuating the carceral system".
 
I worked with a guy who shaved his head bald in order to not have to take the annual hair drug test. Joke was on him, they took it from his armpit. He asked what would happen if he had saved that too. The lady just looked at him, she was not amused.

Unsurprisingly he failed the drug test and went into the department mandated rehab protocol. Which he flunked out of and lost his job and pension. Genius.

MGnoob said:
I got to go to the ear doctor on Friday. I’m gonna ask her to touch my penis prescribe some erythromycin… not f***ing around anymore..

I have a driven in weeks can’t see or hear…


But I could piss clean that helps anything

My question is they want to do a hair test? I don’t know where they’re gonna find that.

They need a pencil size diameter of hair. There’s only one place I can think of where they find that and they’re all gray.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top Bottom