The Federal District Court of Massachusetts handed down a pro Second Amendment decision in Fletcher, et al, v Hass, et all,
This case presents the question whether lawful permanent resident aliens are among “the people” for whom the Second
Amendment the United States Constitution provides a right to bear arms.I conclude they are
…
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth more fully above, I GRANT defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14, 16), as to the claims of the plaintiff organizations; but DENY those motions as
to the claims of plaintiffs Fletcher and Pryal. I conclude the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second
Amendment. Accordingly I GRANT Fletcher and Pryal’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23) and direct that judgment enter enjoining denial of firearm licenses and permits to them solely
on the basis of their permanent resident alien status.
The judge denied the motions by two organizations, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., and COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC., solely because they have no members who are 1) resident aliens living in MA, and b) have been denied a License To Carry or a Firearms Identification Card, because of that status. It’s probably more important that the individuals won, but either way it’s a good decision.
The United States District Court for the District of North Carolina Western Division decided in favor of the plaintiffs in,
MICHAEL BATEMAN, et al v [Governor] BEVERLY PERDUE, et al
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging North Carolina statutes restricting firearms during states of emergency. Before the court are defendants’ motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Appropriate responses and replies have been filed, and the time for further filings has
expired.…
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiffs’motion for summary judgment [DE #44] and hereby DECLARES N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-288.7, 14-288.12{b), 14-288.13{b), 14-288.14{a)
and 14-288.15{d) unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. The court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [DE #52]. The clerk is
directed to close this case.
This 29th day of March 2012.
At issue was whether the State of North Carolina and it’s political sub divisions had the authority to deny it’s citizens their Second Amendment rights during “states of emergency” as declared by any number of public officials. The court concluded that such law violates the Second Amendment rights of the people of North Carolina.
Last, but by no means least, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the plaintiff in,
RAYMOND WOOLLARD, et al., v. TERRENCE SHERIDAN, et al.
*
******MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs Raymond Woollard (―Woollard‖) and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., (―SAF‖) have brought this action against Defendants Terrence Sheridan, Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police (―MSP Secretary Sheridan‖); Denis Gallagher;
Seymour Goldstein; and Charles M. Thomas, Jr., (collectively, ―Defendants‖) claiming that one provision of Maryland‘s handgun carry permit law violates the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss on abstention grounds.
Alternatively, they seek dismissal of plaintiffs‘ equal protection claim on the ground that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is
necessary.
The judge found in particular that the part of the Maryland handgun permit law that states,
―has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.
violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Keep in mind that all of these are federal district court rulings, still subject to appeal. Still, two of them come from states traditionally hostile to the Second Amendment Rights of their citizens. If any of these are appealed to the level of the Supreme Court, then they will be binding nationally and some people may not like that. Then again, a lot of people will like that quite a bit.
