Hightower v. Boston (MA)
Hightower v. City of Boston is the first case brought in federal court that directly challenges a police chief's arbitrary authority to deny someone a license to possess a handgun and the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms.I've long opined that the manner in which MA approaches "may issue" was going to result in a court challenge. As it currently stands, your ability to legally own a "high capacity" semi-automatic long arm or any handgun can be taken away at any time for any reason by the local licensing authority. Since a "may issue" permit is required simply to own these types of weapons, if your Chief of Police decides that you are "unsuitable", you lose *all* of your firearms, period. You can apply for a "shall issue" FID card, but that only covers shotguns and low capacity rifles.
We're in luck, though:
In addition to Comm2A, this case is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. Chester Darling and Alan Gura are the plaintiff's attorneys.If Alan Gura be with us, who can be agin us?
That is all.
UPDATE: If Alan Gura happens to read this (or someone who knows Alan), please let him know that when he's in MA, if he would like, range time and/or refreshing adult beverages at the establishment of his choosing are on me.
14 comments:
When Alan is in town we need to contact him and see if he'd be interested in drinking for free again.
I had so much fun talking with him in NC.
Whatever happens, we have got Alan Gura, and they have not.
Here's hoping he puts another notch in his briefcase handle.
Drinking? Well, yeah, but you should invite him on a range trip, too. That would be truly made of awesome.
I've updated the post to include both ideas.
Alan, if by some miracle someone happens to send this to you, I'm dead-serious. Range time, couple of drinks at the end of the day, whichever (or both) you'd prefer, just let me know and it's yours.
I'm pretty sure Gura will never buy another drink in his life if he doesn't want to. His free time on his last trip here was spent talking strategy with the board of Comm2A. There are more cases in the works.
When I think about the unfettered discretion that MA law give chief's in denying, approving, revoking, LTCs, the term "capricious, arbitrary, and unreasonable" comes to mind.
Hopefully the federal courts will add "constitutionally impermissible" to that.
Let me know when and where for the drinking.
Mr. Gura is also leading the charge here in NY, in Westchester County, which pretty much deals with handguns the same way that Mass does.
Now...if he could also find the right case in NJ, and win all three, that would be a TriFecta of awesome.
The ONLY thing that worries me is the past two SCOTUS decisions (Heller and McDonald) where the rulings were wishy-washy at best. There was no *The Second says Shall Not Be Infringed, period* from the bench...it left the door open to *reasonable restrictions*, and the fact is that *reasonableness* is what the majority in power says it is.
We have too many bleating sheeple in this country who wet themselves at the sight of a 2" tall toy soldier with a machine gun in its hand. As long as the mentality of the populace is one of utter and abject stupidity, we're going to have ruling after ruling that tries to narrowly and incrementally creep to a place where a *balance* is struck between the two extremes of gun ownership/confiscation.
The best way to handle it is the way that my mom used to handle dinnertime...
*This is whats for dinner. There is nothing else. You can eat what I made and have a full belly, or you can get up and walk away hungry. I don't care either way, because I did MY job and made dinner.*
The Founders made dinner for us...its called the Bill of Rights. If there are those amongst us who don't like whats for dinner, they can get up and walk away from the table and get dinner in another country.
Patriot
Muller v Maenza in NJ isn't being handled by Gura, but it is supported by SAF, so I'm sure Gura has at least some involvement. Both sides have agreed to an accelerated timetable in that case as there aren't any facts in dispute, only matters of law. Briefing will finish March 9. I'm not sure how soon after that oral argument and the decision will happen, but I'm guessing we'll have a result by the end of summer.
Yep, SAF has a case in NJ, substantially similar to the NY Westchester County case. Plus, and far more interesting, we have the Aitken appeal... Why is that more interesting, you might ask? Because Brian was popped for illegal (unlicensed) *possession* of three types of items: handguns, regular-capacity magazines, and hollow-point bullets.
That bypasses the question of shall-issue or may-issue and goes straight to the heart of "may the government forbid possession without a permit." Plus the magazine size limit. Pass the popcorn, please.
Ian,
Perhaps you misunderstand. In MA, you need a permit simply to own *ANY* firearm.
Rifle, shotgun, or handgun, you need a permit just to own one in the Volksrepublik of MA. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are "May Issue" - meaning that the Chief of Police can deny you the ability to legally own a handgun for any reason they see fit...
I know you're just simplifying, but it's semi-auto rifles with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Whether this means possible capacity or capacity as used is complicated, but a 10 round or less fixed mag semi-auto like a Garand or an SKS is definitely ok on the shall issue FID.
Ian: I don't hold out much hope for the Aitken case giving us much in the way of a 2A victory - I expect the appeals court will take the less controversial path and "not reach the question" of whether the law violates the 2A, because they can remand based on the judge's procedural error of not allowing the jury to consider the moving exemption.
If the new jury - with a new judge and the moving exemption defense allowed - still convicts him, then it might move to the Constitutionality question, but right now the judge's idiocy is the key factor.
@Weerd, I'm aware that MA requires a permit to own a firearm. NJ law requires a permit to possess a firearm, except under certain, tightly defined, circumstances. (The permit for a long arm is shall-issue; it's the FID; which makes it slightly better than MA, I will admit - and there are exemptions to the possession ban, which MA doesn't have). Brian claimed he was covered by one of the exceptions, but I will agree that he might not have been - it depends on whther or not returning to his mother's house at the request of police is a "diversion reasonably necessary under the circumstances".
The other interesting thing about the Aitken case is the "high-cap" magazine charge. There's no moving exemption for that. The only way out of getting convicted for the magazines is to get the law struck down. (The hollow-points are under the same exemptions as the handguns, incidentally - technically illegal to possess, but the same list of exemptions for handguns covers hollow-points).
One wonders why you do not plot an excape from such a oppressive place, MA.
Borepatch seems to have made a clean break and so far appears to be free again.
Even in the libtarded state of Minnesota, they know enough to stay away from our guns. And we are a "shall issue" state.
Post a Comment