SCOTUS Worman vs Healy (Massachusetts)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not a lawyer but I already id’ed several statements that could debunked, including 3% of that weapons type.
 
A quick glance just supports some analyses that Heller contained a Rorschach test of what could be controlled. Heller fans say it was clear. Anti gun advocates find room to ban some weapons types for various rationales. The ambiguity was a sop to Kennedy, we now know. Some Scalia fan boys said it was brilliant as Scalia was setting up a later grand decision (that's always said when a court decision goes bad - wait, this is a good thing because it sets up the grand SCOTUS elimination of all gun laws, esp. with the court superheroes put in place by Trump - we will see). However, Thomas and Scalia were outraged in dissent when the rest of the court wouldn't take up a later case. Oops.

Wait for it - Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will save the day. However, does the Remington case and NYC case indicate these heroes may not be such? The legal types discuss why this or that legal weed and scrumptious scrutiny doctrines indicate the seemingly negative views of these cases really mean that the great golden decision is coming.

We will see. I'm not positive. It is clear that there will be no legislative Federal action that protects gun rights. The new Trump-ite justices at lower levels may be more concerned with judicial activism on two social issues whose content may not be discussed than gun rights.
 
Well, we have a number of incompatible decisions afoot. Are arms in "common use" protected or not. Are "militia" weapons protected or not. Can the details (and scrutiny) consequent to McDonald be ignored, or should they be universally applied.

If "common usage" extends to "outside the home" then it seems like all the various State AWB would need extensive rewriting at the minimum. (Which appears to be the contention applied by Worman, even though they are asking for repeal.)

It's worth noting that the previous attempts for higher judicial review of several States' laws--notably MD--wer on too-narrow terms (limited by the cases brought) which 'allowed' for want of a better term, the larger issues to be glossed over. Which comports with a general reluctance of SCOTUS to "meddle" in State-level jurisprudence, except en extremis.

Now, "'we" are gnerally agreed that this situation is extreme and serious. We just have to find a way to get the political classes to align with us, which is probably going to take force. let us hope nad pray we only need the force of law.
 
Well I hope SCOTUS will agree to hear this case and rule against MASS. If they do a full on repeal of the law, then almost every state will have to rewrite some of their laws. Such as CA NJ and even VA when those bills pass, and yes they will pass. However, I am scared SCOTUS won’t hear the case. Then again they could still repeal the law in Mass, but write an opinion in such a way that it is not fully repealed but only partially.

Same thing could happen with the NYC case. now at this point they have to rule first on if the case is moot or not, which will set a precedent, even before they rule on the main question. They won’t rule on the main question if they rule the case is moot. If they rule on the case not being moot, then they will decide the main question.

Assuming they rule the case is not moot and make a ruling on the main question of the NYC case, it could have an effect on the MASS case, meaning depending the decision they might just not hear the mass case at all. It could be the exact reason why they have not denied or accepted the Mass case yet. We will see.
 
A quick glance just supports some analyses that Heller contained a Rorschach test of what could be controlled. Heller fans say it was clear. Anti gun advocates find room to ban some weapons types for various rationales. The ambiguity was a sop to Kennedy, we now know. Some Scalia fan boys said it was brilliant as Scalia was setting up a later grand decision (that's always said when a court decision goes bad - wait, this is a good thing because it sets up the grand SCOTUS elimination of all gun laws, esp. with the court superheroes put in place by Trump - we will see). However, Thomas and Scalia were outraged in dissent when the rest of the court wouldn't take up a later case. Oops.

Wait for it - Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will save the day. However, does the Remington case and NYC case indicate these heroes may not be such? The legal types discuss why this or that legal weed and scrumptious scrutiny doctrines indicate the seemingly negative views of these cases really mean that the great golden decision is coming.

We will see. I'm not positive. It is clear that there will be no legislative Federal action that protects gun rights. The new Trump-ite justices at lower levels may be more concerned with judicial activism on two social issues whose content may not be discussed than gun rights.

I do understand that a decision by SCOTUS on a case rides a lot on the opinion written and given on a case. The explanations given for the decision, as well as background information, prior court cases, and other writings and history about various laws. In some cases I have noticed even the Magna Carta being mentioned in an opinion.

However barring that, as I understand it your a lawyer. If in fact SCOTUS does decide to hear this case and find against Mass. In your legal opinion, how will that affect, if at all, any of the proposed bills in various different states that would band assault weapons (rifles &/or handguns) and high cap mags? How might this effect those states that already have those laws banning them? Would it effect laws of registration?

As I understand it and I could be wrong, Mass has an all out ban on assault rifles and does not even have a registration capability as there is in Ca, and proposed in Va.

Basically, if hey find against Mass, will it stop those bills regarding high cap mags and Assault weapons from being passed? Would it essentially render all others repealed? (In other states, and federally)
 
Basically, if hey find against Mass, will it stop those bills regarding high cap mags and Assault weapons from being passed? Would it essentially render all others repealed?

As I understand it, only the specific MA law in question is decided. Typically, another action is then required, a stay or repeal, or amendment of the law in in question, and only in MA.

After Heller, DC simply rewrote their onerous bills, only to have those enjoined (IIRC).

Now, MA is part of the 1st Circuit, which would mean that people could advance cases in other jurisdictions within the 1st Circuit and use the precedent as a reason for a ruling in their favor.

Cases in other jurisdictions can use it as precedent, but each would need arguing on an individual basis. That is, unless someone can get a SCOTUS ruling based on 14th amendment applicability (like MacDonald v. Chicago).
 
With Heller 2 case in 2012, a 50 page dissent opinion was written by a judge in disdain of court's actions essentially saying DC's ban on semi-auto rifle is unconstitutional under Heller.

This dissent was written by ... wait for it ... justice Kavanaugh! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

"... the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"
I cannot wait to hear what justice Kavanaugh has to say about SCOTUS gun rights/2A cases and we already know what justice Gorsuch will say, "... charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

Justice Gorsuch looks to be turning the Supreme Court back towards "Originalist" thinking to accept the 27 amendments as sufficient modern evolution of the Constitution and SCOTUS justices being the backstop for ALL of Bill of Right's amendments, including the Second Amendment when the executive and legislative branches of government fail to uphold the Constitution. I could see them building on Heller ruling as there have been recent court rulings calling magazines "arms" and modern semi-auto firearms not in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution as modern types of "arms" protected by 2A - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...t-an-assault-weapon-ban.861535/#post-11346558

First Amendment protects modern types of communication and Second Amendment should protect modern types of "arms", especially for those with physical disabilities, with "adaptive modern devices" to effectively defend themselves to include arm braces, optics, suppressors, binary triggers, etc.

Even justice Ginsburg supports Gorsuch/Kavanaugh's impeccable reasoning to possibly allow the SCOTUS to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights, once again, like for voting rights of blacks and women, to defend the minority gun owners' right to self defense. Of course, my two cents.

Why I think SCOTUS will grant cert on Worman v Healey - Heller 2 case
 
Last edited:
With Heller 2 case in 2012, a 50 page dissent opinion was written by a judge in disdain of court's actions essentially saying DC's ban on semi-auto rifle is unconstitutional under Heller.

This dissent was written by ... wait for it ... justice Kavanaugh! :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: - https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

"... the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"
I cannot wait to hear what justice Kavanaugh has to say about SCOTUS gun rights/2A cases and we already know what justice Gorsuch will say, "... charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

Justice Gorsuch looks to be turning the Supreme Court back towards "Originalist" thinking to accept the 27 amendments as sufficient modern evolution of the Constitution and SCOTUS justices being the backstop for ALL of Bill of Right's amendments, including the Second Amendment when the executive and legislative branches of government fail to uphold the Constitution. I could see them building on Heller ruling as there have been recent court rulings calling magazines "arms" and modern semi-auto firearms not in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution as modern types of "arms" protected by 2A - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...t-an-assault-weapon-ban.861535/#post-11346558

First Amendment protects modern types of communication and Second Amendment should protect modern types of "arms", especially for those with physical disabilities, with "adaptive modern devices" to effectively defend themselves to include arm braces, optics, suppressors, binary triggers, etc.

Even justice Ginsburg supports Gorsuch/Kavanaugh's impeccable reasoning to possibly allow the SCOTUS to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights, once again, like for voting rights of blacks and women, to defend the minority gun owners' right to self defense. Of course, my two cents.

Why I think SCOTUS will grant cert on Worman v Healey - Heller 2 case

Thanks for your reply and information.

I had a feeling this case will be an exceptionally important case if SCOTUS hear it.

lets cross our fingers since the conference to decide on hearing this case was yesterday. Jan 10th.
 
It is hard to know what the upper courts will do with any particular case. Sometimes it seems like they will go to any length to avoid changing what they see as settled law. I can kind of understand that position. When you keep changing what the law means over and over again it starts to mean nothing.

It also seems to me that the Supreme Court expects the lower courts to do the heavy lifting on most of these kinds of cases and the lower courts just have refused to do it.
 
Latest update on this case from scotusblog.com



The Supreme Court does not appear to have redistributed the petition in Worman v. Healey, the challenge to the Massachusetts ban on possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The justices considered the case for the first time at their conference last week; if the petition is not redistributed for this week’s conference, it could signal that the justices are holding the case until they rule on another gun-rights case that was argued in December, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top