Posted on 10/12/2022 7:16:37 AM PDT by marktwain
On Monday, October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court struck down another unconstitutional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, restoring more Second Amendment rights.
The Court granted the writ of certiorari. Then it vacated the existing opinion by the lower court. Then it sent the case back to the First Circuit Court of Appeals to be reheard in light of the Second Amendment decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The case is Morin, Alfred V. Lyver, William, et al. From the Supreme Court.gov:
21-1160 MORIN, ALFRED V. LYVER, WILLIAM, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
Massachusetts has extremely restrictive firearms laws.
The case is an especially egregious infringement on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. First, Massachusetts required the plaintiff to jump through numerous legal circus hoops to exercise his rights.
Moran attempted to exercise his rights in D.C., with a carry permit from Massachusetts, in 2004, believing his permit would be honored.
The District of Columbia was also egregiously infringing on Second Amendment rights.
Attempting to follow the law, he asked a security guard to hold his pistol for him because a sign informed him it was illegal to bear arms inside the American Museum of Natural History. For this outrageous attempt to follow the law, the District of Columbia punished him, and Massachusetts deprived him of all Second Amendment rights.
Here is how the federal court in Massachusetts presented the case. From the case text in the United States District Court of Massachusetts:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I am confused.
Does this mean that some sort of reciprocity between states is on the table?
Or, does this mean that because he lost his Ma LTC. It should be reinstated?
Yes!
It would sure be nice if the original arresting officers, the legislators who passed the law, the governor who signed it, and the prosecutors and/or judges who all decided the earlier cases could be brought up on federal Official Oppression or Conspiracy Against Civil Rights Under Color of Authority criminal charges.
It’s time we start treating the Bill of Rights like the Bill of Rights. They belong to US, not the friggin’ Feddies. The Feddies have no control over the Bill of Rights. NONE!!!
Will this affect DC?
Sorry but not knowing the conceal laws in the states you travel to and then conceal carry in those states is just plain stupid and looking for big trouble. He is lucky he did not get sent to jail. Asking a security guard to “hold on” to his gun ?
This man is a moron, sorry......
——I have wondered why the clause in the Constitution stating that the states must honor or other states” contracts, etc., doesn’t apply to concealed carry permits—
—maybe this is a step toward that—
100% right
The arresting officers were just following orders. Be sure to thank them for their service.
SCOTUS to MASS. courts:
“If you make me get up out of this chair and come over there you’re going to all get an azz tanning you’ll never forget.”
The case was specific to him obtaining a permit to own firearms. The Supreme Court cited Bruen, so it appears his license to carry will be restored.
There are lots of precedents that traveling armed was given greater protection in the early republic than ordinary.
So far, I have not seen a case in the courts challenging the power of states to restrict people from other states from carrying.
I think it will be brought, now that Bruen has been decided.
It is hard to believe a fundamental and enumerated right stops at a state's border.
They should be...
Then again, a LOT of things "should". Starting with legislators being jailed for violation of oath of office just trying to pass these blatant infringements.
Sure would be nice if one of the elements of fallout of this would be to force Mass to become a “Shall Issue” state. I imagine it would be unreasonably optimistic to think MA will ever regain enough sanity to adopt “constitutional carry”, but forcing them to abandon “May Issue” would be a big step back in the direction of constitutionality.
You may or may not know..
the mass “permit to purchase” is a mythical unicorn that only exists in court cases the gov pulls out as a “drop the suit immediately” card”.
the LTC (license to carry) is the defacto permit to purchase, own and transport guns and ammo.
Until now CLEOs/ licensing officers have had a “suitability” out that allows them to deny licenses to anybody they do not deem to be “suitable” (that is lessening but still there).
As this guy was convicted of a crime, in mass he is instantly “unsuitable”. If they get rid of “suitability” that is going to mean a whole revamping, eliminating “suitability” and go to some sort of objective standards, and possibly include a real method to have licenses issued or reinstated.
That would be a MASSIVE sea change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.