Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-02-2018, 2:22 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up Gould v. Morgan (MA carry case) -- cert. Response due 2019 May 06

Hat Tip to wolfwood for bringing this case to our attention. He believes it will get to SCOTUS before Young, his Hawaii LOC case.

My guess is we could get a decision from SCOTUS on Gould in 2 years, vs 3 for Young. Whether we'll win or not depends upon CJ Roberts...



Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
If en banc is granted Young is out of the top spot for supreme court review.
The case you would be looking at would be Gould v O'Leary which is a case out of the 1st Circuit which was heard for oral argument last week on Mass.'s handgun carry laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
No it was a three panel. 1st Circuit operates much quicker than the Ninth.
Gould was dismissed and filed his NOA in Dec.
He finished briefing in June and had oral argument in july.
Even if th first circuit goes en banc it will be done long before the 9th.
ETA: here's the SCOTUS docket webpage: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....c\18-1272.html
They've been given until 2019 April 01 to file for cert
Cert petition was filed on April 01, now Response is due May 06
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 04-06-2019 at 9:29 PM.. Reason: updated title
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-02-2018, 2:40 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,258
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Hat Tip to wolfwood for bringing this case to our attention. He believes it will get to SCOTUS before Young, his Hawaii LOC case.

My guess is we could get a decision from SCOTUS on Gould in 2 years, vs 3 for Young. Whether we'll win or not depends upon CJ Roberts...



this is the oral arguments
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/17-2202.mp3

link to all the briefing

http://comm2a.org/55-projects/234-gould

Last edited by wolfwood; 08-02-2018 at 2:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-02-2018, 3:14 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I started listening to orals and realized I had heard them recently...



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1465362
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-03-2018, 12:17 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 269
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yah, I posted a thread on it last month. Maybe that's where you saw them.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-04-2018, 5:32 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Loss at CA1 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...018-11-02.html

Another case ready for SCOTUS, pending a quick en banc denial.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-04-2018, 6:53 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Loss at CA1 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...018-11-02.html

Another case ready for SCOTUS, pending a quick en banc denial.
The platitudes and clichés disguised as legal logic made it an easy read. It may be ready for SCOTUS, but I have my doubts they will grant cert. The decision essentially says if you want less restrictive carry laws elect legislators that will give you them.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-04-2018, 8:42 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 838
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Personal belief is that SCOTUS will not deal with any CCW cases until the right to bear is fleshed out for OC. Only then will they have a framework to decide the merits of CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-04-2018, 9:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Personal belief is that SCOTUS will not deal with any CCW cases until the right to bear is fleshed out for OC. Only then will they have a framework to decide the merits of CCW.
There's not a whole lot of places to even go for an OC lawsuit with CA9 already dealing with Young and Nichols.
This case doesn't distinguish between open and concealed so it should be a decent case for SCOTUS
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-04-2018, 2:11 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,258
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Rodgers is up for a cert petition. That is the NJ handgun carry case. I guess SCOTUS takes one of these or maybe both next term.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-04-2018, 2:34 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Rodgers is up for a cert petition. That is the NJ handgun carry case. I guess SCOTUS takes one of these or maybe both next term.
My guess is, unless someone "leaves" the Court before the end of this term (end of June), Thomas will retire and Trump will be able to replace him.

Plus, RBG, Breyer and Sotomayor (Type 1 diabetes since childhood), ain't getting any younger....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-04-2018, 4:42 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have a LTC from MA (because that is where I am from originally) and the requirements vary from town-to-town. Brookline's restrictions are something I have not seen before in the state (although the shooting test is well-known in the state): employment, hunting, target practice, sport, transport, domestic (use only in and around one's home), or collecting. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out how one could have a domestic permit: is the gun delivered to your home and you need a shooting range? I know you can get customized restrictions, but I was not aware of these ones mentioned in the ruling.

This case is a pretty good one IMHO because MA's whole system is premised on the fact you need to demonstrate you have "good cause" for *any* license. In practice, you usually will see restrictions (Hunting & Sport) for people who either don't want or are not eligible/didn't provide a good reason for a CCW. Ineligibility could be because of statue, federal, or simply the CLEO wants things done his or her way. In this Circuit, if "good cause" is upheld, then it is disagreement in Wrenn vs D.C. causing a circuit split. Lucky for me, my chief accepts a "good cause" as meaning "for self-defense and all lawful purposes".

Still, there are other ways MA can act (as the "good cause" is only one method) to make CCW basically subjective *or even every single type of license*. I provide an example of Braintree, MA mixed with Brookline, MA to come up with this example: 1) go to a shooting class (4 hours + live fire), 2) get 5 letters of recommendation from non-family, 3) conduct an in person interview with the Chief (hours are maybe a few days a week), 4) schedule then do a live fire qualifying exercise (this could be anything they want!), 5) submit your application, 6) wait 60 days + (the Statue gives a minimum time but no one cares), 7) end up with maybe some restrictions. Now, MA doesn't have many public ranges, so now you need a friend or to pay someone to go use their time and weapon to practice. If you are really unlucky, you will end up qualifying on the outdoor range in the middle of some island off the coast of Boston in the freezing weather where Brookline and Boston do the qualifying exam (this is for ANY type of license not just CCW). As long as the CLEO is not acting capriciously, they can do whatever they want, assign you whatever they want, and you might be stuck with >$500 in fees and wasted time. Also, some require you to be part of a gun club which are not always looking for new people.

Test ain't too hard, but the range is outside and you cannot wear gloves:
https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/commen...ange_test_fyi/

Last edited by BryMan92; 11-04-2018 at 6:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-05-2018, 7:27 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
I have a LTC from MA (because that is where I am from originally) and the requirements vary from town-to-town. Brookline's restrictions are something I have not seen before in the state (although the shooting test is well-known in the state): employment, hunting, target practice, sport, transport, domestic (use only in and around one's home), or collecting. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out how one could have a domestic permit: is the gun delivered to your home and you need a shooting range? I know you can get customized restrictions, but I was not aware of these ones mentioned in the ruling.

This case is a pretty good one IMHO because MA's whole system is premised on the fact you need to demonstrate you have "good cause" for *any* license. In practice, you usually will see restrictions (Hunting & Sport) for people who either don't want or are not eligible/didn't provide a good reason for a CCW. Ineligibility could be because of statue, federal, or simply the CLEO wants things done his or her way. In this Circuit, if "good cause" is upheld, then it is disagreement in Wrenn vs D.C. causing a circuit split. Lucky for me, my chief accepts a "good cause" as meaning "for self-defense and all lawful purposes".

Still, there are other ways MA can act (as the "good cause" is only one method) to make CCW basically subjective *or even every single type of license*. I provide an example of Braintree, MA mixed with Brookline, MA to come up with this example: 1) go to a shooting class (4 hours + live fire), 2) get 5 letters of recommendation from non-family, 3) conduct an in person interview with the Chief (hours are maybe a few days a week), 4) schedule then do a live fire qualifying exercise (this could be anything they want!), 5) submit your application, 6) wait 60 days + (the Statue gives a minimum time but no one cares), 7) end up with maybe some restrictions. Now, MA doesn't have many public ranges, so now you need a friend or to pay someone to go use their time and weapon to practice. If you are really unlucky, you will end up qualifying on the outdoor range in the middle of some island off the coast of Boston in the freezing weather where Brookline and Boston do the qualifying exam (this is for ANY type of license not just CCW). As long as the CLEO is not acting capriciously, they can do whatever they want, assign you whatever they want, and you might be stuck with >$500 in fees and wasted time. Also, some require you to be part of a gun club which are not always looking for new people.

Test ain't too hard, but the range is outside and you cannot wear gloves:
https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/commen...ange_test_fyi/
Good synopsis of MA requirements. I'm a bit confused though how you are able to get a resident LTC if you are now a nonresident since nonresidents have to go through the state police rather than a local chief.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-05-2018, 6:15 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
Good synopsis of MA requirements. I'm a bit confused though how you are able to get a resident LTC if you are now a nonresident since nonresidents have to go through the state police rather than a local chief.
I am new to CA.

Statutorily, when you move, you fill out a form that says you've moved. I would reckon the old CLEO is technically the issuer so the new CLEO may not *technically* be able to redact it per se until renewal. But, I suppose, if you moved the new CLEO could have your license suspended or simply down-grade, again, as long as they are consistent. MA doesn't have a law that defines a resident besides case law. The local PD refer your application to the State Police and they generally just go "yup".

The MA licensing scheme has gotten a bit better since now you can appeal a CLEO with a vendetta and the state is *technically* open carry if you get "NO RESTRICTIONS". Your permit comes along with 5 PPT without need to go to a FFL annually by registering the transaction (sad face), can import rifles into the state by registering the transaction (sad face), and allows purchase of ammo (simply by presenting it).

Last edited by BryMan92; 11-05-2018 at 8:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-06-2018, 7:29 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
I am new to CA.

Statutorily, when you move, you fill out a form that says you've moved. I would reckon the old CLEO is technically the issuer so the new CLEO may not *technically* be able to redact it per se until renewal. But, I suppose, if you moved the new CLEO could have your license suspended or simply down-grade, again, as long as they are consistent. MA doesn't have a law that defines a resident besides case law. The local PD refer your application to the State Police and they generally just go "yup".

The MA licensing scheme has gotten a bit better since now you can appeal a CLEO with a vendetta and the state is *technically* open carry if you get "NO RESTRICTIONS". Your permit comes along with 5 PPT without need to go to a FFL annually by registering the transaction (sad face), can import rifles into the state by registering the transaction (sad face), and allows purchase of ammo (simply by presenting it).
Thanks, that makes sense. I met someone recently in Manchester NH who was in a similar situation. She was told to apply as a nonresident in Chelsea when her resident LTC was up for renewal.

It's worth noting that nonresidents must have an LTC from their state of residence, so that eliminates many in CA from applying.

I still don't think this or Rogers in NJ will get cert. Yes, they split with the Wrenn decision, but I don't think this is enough. Scalia was famous for saying that too many cases are brought before the judiciary that should be solved legislatively, and IMHO Scotus sees carry cases this way. We'll see.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-10-2018, 3:34 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Rodgers is up for a cert petition. That is the NJ handgun carry case. I guess SCOTUS takes one of these or maybe both next term.
Is there a CGN thread for the Rodgers (NJ) Carry case?

Link to its SCOTUS docket?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2019, 8:03 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,363
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quick Update:
Breyer granted petition for extension to file for cert to 1st April 2019

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18a660.html
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2019, 8:39 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Oh wow, I had no idea how far this case had gotten. Excellent.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:05 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
Quick Update:
Breyer granted petition for extension to file for cert to 1st April 2019

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18a660.html
Cool! IIRC at this late hour, that puts it ahead of Young, Nichols and Flanagan.

Anyone know if they skipped asking for en banc?

FWIW, I hope it is granted, taken early next term, Thomas writes the opinion as his magnum opus, and retires a year before Trump's re-election year (2020). If RBG leaves before then too, that will mean 4 Trump justices in just his first term!

Breyer and Sotomayor can wait for his second term as president.

If it is granted cert late this term, that means it could be heard fall 2019 and decided winter or spring 2020, rather than waiting for the last Court day of the last Court week in the last Court month (2020 June).

Carry, here we come!!!!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-12-2019 at 8:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-11-2019, 7:13 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Wow!

This case is good because the MA LTC has no distinction (in law, at least) between OC or CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-12-2019, 8:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

3 weeks!

Quote:
Dec 26 2018 Application (18A660) granted by Justice Breyer extending the time to file until April 1, 2019.
From: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18a660.html

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-12-2019, 10:55 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS is going to take a carry case sooner or later. I am not sold on Roberts making the right ruling, but with the DC circuit split, it seem inevitable.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:07 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What makes this a very interesting case is that in MA you can either CCW or OC with the same license and both are treated the exact same: a "good cause" is required for both. So this ruling can ignore which carry is the 2A carry thus accruing more pissing contests on this forum. :P

Brookline and Boston are essentially no carry issue but Boston will reciprocate if you move there. So if you get a unrestricted license in West Nothingshireesterham, then BPD will honor that license. Brookline will downgrade you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-14-2019, 2:57 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
What makes this a very interesting case is that in MA you can either CCW or OC with the same license and both are treated the exact same: a "good cause" is required for both. So this ruling can ignore which carry is the 2A carry thus accruing more pissing contests on this forum. :P

Brookline and Boston are essentially no carry issue but Boston will reciprocate if you move there. So if you get a unrestricted license in West Nothingshireesterham, then BPD will honor that license. Brookline will downgrade you.
Same situation in the NJ case currently at SCOTUS except that it's virtually impossible to get a carry permit anywhere in NJ. Mass is de facto shall issue save a few jurisdictions like the ones you mention.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-14-2019, 9:38 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Same situation in the NJ case currently at SCOTUS except that it's virtually impossible to get a carry permit anywhere in NJ. Mass is de facto shall issue save a few jurisdictions like the ones you mention.
Yes, very true. In most places (even out of state LTC) you just have to write "I am a law abiding citizen who wants to be able to protect myself" and you are generally fine. But, that is, for now of course....

In some of the amici (maybe here or in NJ case) some argue not about the good cause per se but about how discretionary licensing in in totality.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-01-2019, 6:13 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
3 weeks!

Quote:
Dec 26 2018 Application (18A660) granted by Justice Breyer extending the time to file until April 1, 2019.
From: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18a660.html

Nothing since the above on SCOTUS' docket for Gould.


Last edited by Paladin; 04-01-2019 at 6:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-02-2019, 3:35 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Nothing since the above on SCOTUS' docket for Gould.

Lawyers seem to never file anything early. It probably got to SCOTUS at 4:59PM yesterday. Should see the docket updated this week.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:52 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,258
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=234216

here it is
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-02-2019, 1:52 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Plaintiff's counsel in this case is the same as in the Rogers case from NJ
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-05-2019, 9:39 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The cert. petition Response is due May 06
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-05-2019, 10:51 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What are the odds of having Rogers and Gould rolled together as a combined case? They do that from time to time, correct?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-06-2019, 12:07 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have a feeling they would take Rogers. Gould’s brief argues a lot to see go look st Rogers. I hope they take MA to give them another stroke for violating the Constituion.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-06-2019, 1:05 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,208
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default 2nd amendment cases from Mass

Last 2nd amendment case from Massachutes came via the Massachutes Supreme Court, the Caetano case.

Short version, the Massachutes Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a homeless woman for carrying an "Electric Stun Gun".

That court held that the second amendment applied only to "Guns".

The US Supreme Court vacated that ruling(8-0), sent it back and said try again.
Although not as binding as a full ruling, with Justice Kavanaugh, we may actually get at least a 5-4 ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:01 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Last 2nd amendment case from Massachutes came via the Massachutes Supreme Court, the Caetano case.

Short version, the Massachutes Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a homeless woman for carrying an "Electric Stun Gun".

That court held that the second amendment applied only to "Guns".

The US Supreme Court vacated that ruling(8-0), sent it back and said try again.
Although not as binding as a full ruling, with Justice Kavanaugh, we may actually get at least a 5-4 ruling.
And the Mass Supremes got the message when another stun gun case got to them, ruling against the state unanimously.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-06-2019, 7:07 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
What are the odds of having Rogers and Gould rolled together as a combined case? They do that from time to time, correct?
They do although its usually when different plaintiffs are suing the same defendant.
More than likely they take one case and GVR the other and the appeals court will strike the law down.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-06-2019, 11:54 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
They do although its usually when different plaintiffs are suing the same defendant.
More than likely they take one case and GVR the other and the appeals court will strike the law down.
Thanks, that makes sense. I don't know the intracasies of judicial proceedings so I get a lot from these threads even if I don't have much to post.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-03-2019, 9:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The cert. petition Response is due May 06
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-03-2019, 11:31 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 220
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Rogers reply brief says they are a stronger case than Gould and Gould affirms it. Anyone know how these two differ? I would say NJ seems to be a total ban while MA is not.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-06-2019, 10:32 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The cert. petition Response is due May 06
Quote:
May 06 2019 Brief of Commonwealth of Massachusetts in opposition submitted.
From: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....c\18-1272.html
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-06-2019, 6:13 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 999
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Still beating the drum for carry only applies in your home. Outside it is a privilege and must be granted by the state. I will be so glad when this argument is lain to rest.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-06-2019, 8:44 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 103
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There was another brief in opposition filed:

Quote:
May 06 2019 Brief of Mark Morgan, et al. in opposition submitted.
It's actually from Andrew Lipson, the new Police Chief of Brookline. I assume that means the case's name will change to Gould v. Lipson.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:15 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.