Other State A LEGAL PRECEDENT SUPPORTING NATIONWIDE CARRY WAS JUST CREATED

[CamoDeafie]

Supreme Court eliminates concealed carry laws & creates carry across State lines

progressive bleating to soon follow!

Armed Scholar is a clickbait guy

 

[solv3nt]

Armed Scholar is a clickbait guy

Also, it's a little misleading to say the supreme court did it. They filed Bruen, which is a slight difference.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Just read the transcript. Yeah no. The guy is talking about the exact same case that Mark Smith talked about, and unlike Mark Smith, didn't provide the documentation/link/info for the district Judge's order

 

[CamoDeafie]

Opinion Coffey Comm v. Donnell.pdf

View and download Opinion Coffey Comm v. Donnell.pdf on DocDroid

www.docdroid.net

Again, the document link for those who don't want to watch videos.

Edit. The Supreme Court did not eliminate concealed carry laws.

This is a District Court Judge who narrowly eliminated license to carry law as unconstitutional as it pertains to non residents traveling into Massachusetts with firearms, but seems to have not said that the entire law shall be struck down for both resident and nonresident alike.

 

[User 1234]

A trial court judge's rulings do not set precedent for future cases. In some cases they may be cited as persuasive, but most jurisdictions prohibit even mentioning other trial court rulings in the current court.

 

[CamoDeafie]

A trial court judge's rulings do not set precedent for future cases. In some cases they may be cited as persuasive, but most jurisdictions prohibit even mentioning other trial court rulings in the current court.

This is true.

It is a State District Court; appeal from that goes to I think Superior Court of Massachusetts, and then to Federal Court of Appeals, maybe, then to SCOTUS.

 

[billdeserthills]

A trial court judge's rulings do not set precedent for future cases. In some cases they may be cited as persuasive, but most jurisdictions prohibit even mentioning other trial court rulings in the current court.

It's still good bait for libs on Huffpost

 

[po18guy]

DOJ Job #1: Target that judge for removal.

 

[CamoDeafie]

DOJ Job #1: Target that judge for removal.

Got quite a ways to go before it becomes Statewide ruling and then there's still the Federal District Court of Appeals which is very likely to rule against this Judge.

Edit. This is why the Judge in this particular case moved to dismiss the case. The DA/Commonwealth can choose to appeal to the MA Superior Court; but I'm not rightly sure that a case that was moved to dismiss, can be appealed?

 

[po18guy]

Got quite a ways to go before it becomes Statewide ruling and then there's still the Federal District Court of Appeals which is very likely to rule against this Judge.

Edit. This is why the Judge in this particular case moved to dismiss the case. The DA/Commonwealth can choose to appeal to the MA Superior Court; but I'm not rightly sure that a case that was moved to dismiss, can be appealed?

If it was dismissed "with prejudice", it cannot be re-filed. If done "without prejudice" it can (and probably will) be re-filed.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Last page, last paragraphs does say ""allow motion to dismiss. So ordered 8-3-23"", signed by Judge. So not sure what's the current status of that as Massachusetts court update system is really byzantine and complicated and just not easy to navigate/find..

 

[po18guy]

Last page, last paragraphs does say ""allow motion to dismiss. So ordered 8-3-23"", signed by Judge. So not sure what's the current status of that as Massachusetts court update system is really byzantine and complicated and just not easy to navigate/find..

More research required. The defense almost certainly made a motion to dismiss with prejudice, but that does not fit the news narrative.

 

[Yarome]

Last page, last paragraphs does say ""allow motion to dismiss. So ordered 8-3-23"", signed by Judge. So not sure what's the current status of that as Massachusetts court update system is really byzantine and complicated and just not easy to navigate/find..

My understanding is that unless "with prejudice" is specifically stated in the order then "without prejudice" is the default without having to be stated. Further action may be taken against the defendant.

I have no doubt the state will appeal. Legal protections of private citizens rights simply can't be allowed to stand in a blue state. Nope... gotta nip that right in the bud or the sheeples might start getting ideas!!

 

[po18guy]

I packed my .45 Combat Commander through Mass in '78. If caught, I would still be in prison there. Had I been caught in Texas, I would have received the "Tourist of the Month" award.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Seems that several States pay merely lip service to the Federal 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (even though it has the much hated Hughes Amendment which bans post 86 MGs from unlicensed civilian hands ) ..
"Permits the interstate transportation of unloaded firearms by any person not prohibited by Federal law from such transportation regardless of any State law or regulation."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49

 

[ma96782]

50 States carry soon?

Dean Donnell?

Massachusetts Judge Rules Law Against Carrying Guns Across State Lines Unconstitutional

A person’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense does not end at state lines, a Massachusetts trial judge ruled earlier this month.

thereload.com

Then, meanwhile in CA.

Rrrrright.....the Govt needs to regulate speech (read as : advertising) in order to have a SAFER California/America.

Aloha, Mark