More fruit of Bruen:
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 ceriorari. 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 exercising 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:
Alfred Morin ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against William Lyver ("Chief Lyver") in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the Town of Northborough, alleging that the Massachusetts firearms licensing scheme, which renders him ineligible for a license to carry, or a permit to purchase, a firearm, violates his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his home for self-defense. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has intervened as a Defendant, and all parties move for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, I find the statute constitutional and deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 19), grant the Commonwealth's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 25), and grant Chief Lyver's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 29).
Background
The Commonwealth issued Plaintiff a Class A license to carry firearms in 1985. His Class A license allowed him to carry a concealed firearm in public, and he had a habit of always carrying a loaded pistol on his person. In October 2004, Plaintiff drove from Massachusetts to Washington, DC, to visit his daughter. Unaware that the District of Columbia would not recognize his Massachusetts license, he carried his pistol with him. While visiting the American Museum of Natural History during his trip, Plaintiff noticed a sign banning firearms. He approached a guard at the museum and asked to check his weapon. The guard contacted the police, who arrested Plaintiff and charged him with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Plaintiff pled guilty to attempting to carry a pistol without a license, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3204(a)(1) (2004), and possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of D.C. Code § 6-2376 (2004). (Docket No. 21-3). The court sentenced him to sixty days in prison on each count, to run concurrently, as well as three months of supervised probation and twenty hours of community service. His prison sentence was suspended.
The case was decided on the discredited "two-step" approach.
Several lower courts had formulated the "two step" approach as a complex way to invalidate the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.
The judge in the case, D. J. Hillman, practically glories in his ability to strip away the right to keep and bear arms from the eminently law-abiding Alfred Morin.
Judge Hillman was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2012.
The First Circuit also applied the two-step approach, coming down on the side of the greatest restriction of the right to keep and bear arms which it could justify.
The Supreme Court reversed the findings by Judge Hillman and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
They sent the case back to be reheard in the First Circuit, to reconsider in light of the Bruen decision.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
2 comments:
Could some one show me in the second amendment where it limits the kind of firearm any one can carry? I have been looking at the 26 words ratified that make up the second amendment and cant find any limitation what so ever. Maybe those lawyers / liars should be disbarred for lying to the court? I personally believe by right of imminent domain the right to carry crosses all state lines. Then maybe some one can show me in the second amendment where it requires any one to have a permit to exercise any constitutional right. Might think about impeaching some of the incompetent liberal judges too.
I have a difficult time finding any thing in the constitution that allows the out lawing of bump stocks. any bump stock currently owned was legally purchased, legally manufactured and legally sold , right? Article one section nine states No Ex Post Facto Laws Shall be passed. Outlawing something that was legally manufactured, legally purchased and legally owned would be an Ex Post Facto Law. so all bump stock in circulation are legal to own they just cant manufacture any more after that law goes into effect. The same with gas powered cars they can stop the manufacture but they cant make them illegal to own or use.
Post a Comment