Morin v. Leahy
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11915
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Alfred Morin, holder of a prior Massachusetts Class A License, pleaded guilty in D.C. (2004) to attempted carrying of a firearm without a license and possession of an unregistered firearm; both were misdemeanors under D.C. law.
- Morin applied to renew a Massachusetts Class A License in 2008 (and again in 2015); Chief of Police Mark Leahy denied renewal because state law bars issuance after certain firearms-related misdemeanor convictions.
- Morin sued Leahy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting an as-applied Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense and seeking declaratory/injunctive relief.
- The Commonwealth intervened; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Morin could exercise the relevant home-possession right via a Firearm Identification Card (FID) plus a permit to purchase.
- Morin appealed only his as-applied Second Amendment challenge to denial of the Class A License. The First Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Class A License as applied violates Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in the home | Morin: denial prevents him from owning/possessing a firearm at home for self-defense | Leahy/Commonwealth: FID card + permit to purchase permits home possession; Class A denial thus does not burden asserted right | Held: No violation — FID + permit allows purchase/delivery and possession at home, so asserted right unaffected |
| Whether Morin has standing to challenge FID statutory disqualification | Morin: statutory FID bar (due to past convictions) is unconstitutional as applied | Defs: Morin never applied for FID or been denied, so no injury | Held: No standing — Morin did not apply for or get denied an FID, so cannot challenge FID scheme |
| Whether § 1983 claim against Leahy survives absent constitutional violation | Morin: denial under state statute violated his constitutional right, so § 1983 relief warranted | Leahy: no constitutional violation; also argues he had no discretion under statute | Held: § 1983 claim fails because Morin did not establish a constitutional violation (and officer lacked discretionary authority) |
| Whether court must decide level of scrutiny or constitutionality of denying licenses/FID to nonviolent misdemeanants | Morin: demands constitutional review of statutory scheme/appropriate scrutiny | Defs: unnecessary if no rights violation shown; other remedies available | Held: Court declines to reach scrutiny or facial constitutionality questions because Morin failed to show a violation of the asserted Second Amendment right |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense)
- Powell v. Tompkins, 783 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2015) (interpreting Massachusetts law on FID/home possession rights)
- Chardin v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 989 N.E.2d 392 (Mass. 2013) (describing rights associated with Class A and FID licenses)
- Commonwealth v. Gouse, 965 N.E.2d 774 (Mass. 2012) (FID permits residence possession under Massachusetts statutory scheme)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 946 N.E.2d 114 (Mass. 2011) (FID allows possession in residence or place of business)
- Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012) (standing and Second Amendment challenges to licensing schemes)
- Young v. City of Providence, 404 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2005) (§ 1983 liability requires showing a constitutional violation)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipal liability principles; need to show municipality was moving force)
- Commonwealth v. Seay, 383 N.E.2d 828 (Mass. 1978) (delivery of purchased firearm to purchaser's residence under permit/FID framework)