PDA

View Full Version : SAF Sues Boston for Carry Rights


yellowfin
12-30-2010, 12:57 PM
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2649477/posts

As expected, another city in the Axis of Evil gets sued for denial of carry rights. Interesting plaintiff and circumstances: this looks like it will produce some really good material. Apparently the police chief of Boston yanked her pistol license without any due process, just *POOF* gone. Given the facts of the case, Boston and the chief are going to have to come up with some really creative and likely totally ridiculous stuff to even attempt to explain themselves.

patsline74
12-30-2010, 1:37 PM
Ms. Hightower has never been charged with or convicted of any crime, and is not disqualified under any statue from possessing firearms. Yet, the Boston Police revoked her LTC and confiscated her personal firearm without any hearing or other form of due process.

http://comm2a.org/

Confiscated her personal firearm!? Is there more of a back story to this? If not, that's some scary stuff. :TFH:

J.D.Allen
12-30-2010, 1:43 PM
http://comm2a.org/

Confiscated her personal firearm!? Is there more of a back story to this? If not, that's some scary stuff. :TFH:

Another bastion of 2A violations feels the sting...get some!

jar
12-30-2010, 2:15 PM
In MA, LTC also means license to own firearms. Hence the confiscation.

Crom
12-30-2010, 2:25 PM
Good. I go to Boson and when i am there It would be nice to carry, especially when getting around on the "T".

uyoga
12-30-2010, 2:27 PM
Good! The more the merrrier. Sue them all!

753X0
12-30-2010, 3:41 PM
Wow.
Boston, of all cities. The home of the original tea party, arguably the cradle of liberty.
Lo, how the mighty have fallen.

But not as hard as they are about to, I'd wager.

krucam
12-30-2010, 4:00 PM
SAF and Comm2A aren't exactly the same thing/entity...just sayin'...

Regardless, good for Comm2A and welcome to the fray.


EDIT: Sorry, my bad! SAF is supporting this one indeed...

Gray Peterson
12-30-2010, 4:05 PM
SAF and Comm2A aren't exactly the same thing/entity...just sayin'...

Regardless, good for Comm2A and welcome to the fray.


EDIT: Sorry, my bad! SAF is supporting this one indeed...

The case is SAF supported. Comm2A is the local org in the vein of CGF. Good people....

yellowfin
03-02-2011, 8:37 AM
An update to the case: there is a change of judge, from Patti Saris to Denise Casper. Also more stalling by Boston, and the MA Attorney General has stepped into the picture as well.

Pat Riot
09-07-2011, 9:36 AM
This is the latest from MD Shooters:

06/21/2011

ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Denise J. Casper: Motion Hearing held on 6/21/2011 re
39[RECAP] Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment And Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by City of Boston, Edward Davis,
35[RECAP] Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Stacey Hightower.

Arguments. Court takes under advisement
28 Motion for Summary Judgment; takes under advisement
35[RECAP] Motion for Summary Judgment; takes under advisement
39[RECAP] Motion for Summary Judgment;


Anyone know when to expect a ruling on this?

Crom
09-07-2011, 10:19 AM
As far as waiting... It looks to me like it's entirely up to Judge Denise J. Casper.

Quser.619
09-07-2011, 11:10 AM
Great hopefully we can get another unfavorable ruling to cause a split & then hello SCOTUS!

Knuckle Dragger
09-07-2011, 4:36 PM
I don't expect this outcome to be much different that what we saw in NY this week. I was at the hearing. It was short, concise, and to the point. The only wild card (and it's not much) is that the judge is very new to the bench. This is one of her first cases.

krucam
09-29-2011, 3:50 PM
Hightower lost out at District today.


09/29/2011 53 Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - For the reasons discussed above, Hightowers motion for summary judgment is DENIED,and the Defendants motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. So ordered.(Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011 54 Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

09/29/2011 Civil Case Terminated. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 09/29/2011)

Opinion: http://ia600303.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.mad.118935/gov.uscourts.mad.118935.53.0.pdf

proclone1
09-29-2011, 4:26 PM
Wow.
Boston, of all cities. The home of the original tea party, arguably the cradle of liberty.
Lo, how the mighty have fallen.

But not as hard as they are about to, I'd wager.

Hah, hundreds of years later, Boston is basically like Chicago but with clam chowder.

ldsnet
09-29-2011, 4:39 PM
Very frustrating to read. After 40 pages of attempting to digest this ruling, this the the only pearl I could find that I think explains the Judges decision:

Following the guidance that this Court has been able to discern from Heller and its progeny, and in the absence of any further guidance from the Supreme Court or the First Circuit, this Court’s analysis would proceed as follows. First, the Massachusetts licensing statutory scheme does not strike at the heart of the Second Amendment: while the difference between a restricted Class A license (which Hightower has not applied for) and an unrestricted Class A license (which Hightower has had revoked) may have some marginal impact on Hightower’s ability to use a gun to defend herself outside her home, it has no impact on her ability to defend hearth and home or to defend herself at home, which she can do adequately with a restricted Class A license or Class B license.
Further, because the statutory scheme at issue here imposes only case-by-case restrictions, it creates a narrower restraint than the categorical prohibitions that, under certain circumstances, survive Second Amendment review.

Then I found this:
But the Court would find that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting public safety, especially in light of theprevalence of gun violence in Massachusetts and especially in Boston, would find further that this interest extends to an interest in removing, at least temporarily, guns from the hands of individuals initially deemed unsuitable for gun possession, and would find further still that these interests bear a meaningful relationship to the enforcement mechanism requiring local licensing authorities like the BPD Commissioner to determine whether an individual applicant appears unsuitable based on the content of her application materials, subject to judicial review.
:mad:

Ubermcoupe
09-29-2011, 4:42 PM
Bummer :(

POLICESTATE
09-29-2011, 4:53 PM
while the difference between a restricted Class A license (which Hightower has not applied for) and an unrestricted Class A license (which Hightower has had revoked) may have some marginal impact on Hightower’s ability to use a gun to defend herself outside her home, it has no impact on her ability to defend hearth and home or to defend herself at home, which she can do adequately with a restricted Class A license or Class B license.

That's cute, you need a permit to exercise your right to self defense and thus defend your right to life.

Yeah, that's right common people of Boston, you don't have a right to life without a permit, that's what the court is telling you. Now get back to work before we turn you into green cheezits to feed the jobless masses.

BS ruling all the way.

dantodd
09-29-2011, 4:59 PM
Then I found this:
But the Court would find that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting public safety, especially in light of theprevalence of gun violence in Massachusetts and especially in Boston, would find further that this interest extends to an interest in removing, at least temporarily, guns from the hands of individuals initially deemed unsuitable for gun possession, and would find further still that these interests bear a meaningful relationship to the enforcement mechanism requiring local licensing authorities like the BPD Commissioner to determine whether an individual applicant appears unsuitable based on the content of her application materials, subject to judicial review.
:mad:

From what I read there is sounds like the judge is OK with the police commissioner taking someone's guns and removing their right to self-defense EVERYWHERE without any sort of due process based solely on the content of a permit application. But that the person deprived of her rights without due process can then petition the courts to have the right restored. Wow. This is REALLY REALLY bad. It is essentially guilty until proven innocent.

glbtrottr
09-29-2011, 5:24 PM
Appeal :)

krucam
09-29-2011, 5:27 PM
Appeal :)

With SAF & Gura at the helm, there's little doubt in that. MA is in CA1 so there will be no conflict or talk of consolidation with Kachalsky, now at CA2.

yellowfin
09-29-2011, 5:27 PM
The worse ruling there is at the lower courts, the more there is to overturn higher up and by doing so gets us more material. We desperately need more material.

safewaysecurity
09-29-2011, 5:28 PM
We really need the Supreme Court to say they mean what they say.

hoffmang
09-29-2011, 11:26 PM
As I've said many times, some arguments are meant for higher courts.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
09-29-2011, 11:32 PM
So, this judge thinks it's acceptable for a law abiding citizen to have their gun rights taken away for a minimum of 40 days? "Well, revocations only happen in 2 percent of the time, so therefor it's perfectly OK to yank her guns for 40 days since it's so rare, therefor it's OK?" Huh?

Window_Seat
12-22-2011, 3:04 PM
Here is the PACER Link (https://ecf.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=11-2281&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y) for the docket info, which has been filed in the First Circuit Court. Can someone please update the Calguns Wiki page (I can't)?

Erik.