SAF Sues Boston for Carry Rights

[proclone1]

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]

[Ubermcoupe]

Bummer

[POLICESTATE]

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]

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.

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]

Appeal

[krucam]

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]

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]

We really need the Supreme Court to say they mean what they say.

[hoffmang]

As I've said many times, some arguments are meant for higher courts.

-Gene

[Gray Peterson]

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]

Here is the PACER Link 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.