AG wins her gun ban

[Nick Fury]

There aren't going to be any. Hell the judge said right in the ruling "this lawsuit is bunk because she hasn't prosecuted anyone".

-Mike

I feel so much better since your intuitions served us so well with the Vermont laws...

Come on man. Can you not see the writing? Smell it in the air..?

 

[LR308_GNR]

I said this in the bump-stock ban thread... they will move to ban and require the turning in of AR15's next ,just like bump stocks.

Step one has been accomplished.
Step two will be coming shortly.

 

[Bfatz]

I said this in the bump-stock ban thread... they will move to ban and require the turning in of AR15's next ,just like bump stocks.

Step one has been accomplished.
Step two will be coming shortly.

If its violence they want its violence they shall get.

 

[And7]

Remember, Baker said it was just a $200 price of plastic with the bumpstocks, now how would it go with actual firearms?

 

[Glockster30]

There aren't going to be any. Hell the judge said right in the ruling "this lawsuit is bunk because she hasn't prosecuted anyone".

-Mike

With this "win" will she now prosecute or will the vagueness issue still prevent her from doing so?

 

[robjax]

I don't really understand how anyone can say the second amendment doesn't cover a specific firearm. So tell me where it specifically says it excludes these firearms.

 

[endus]

I said this in the bump-stock ban thread... they will move to ban and require the turning in of AR15's next ,just like bump stocks.

Step one has been accomplished.
Step two will be coming shortly.

That is definitely my biggest concern.

I don't think it will get to that point - I think it will be more legal and political trouble than it is actually worth for them. That said, we'll see what happens in Deerfield. Deerfield is the government's (note that I am not confining this to liberals/Democrats) wet dream. If that somehow manages not to become a shit show then all bets are off.

 

[robjax]

With this "win" will she now prosecute or will the vagueness issue still prevent her from doing so?

no she won't. she never intended for anything to get to court. the ruling is bogus. If it goes to a higher court with a real judge it would be overturned. She got lucky as she had a judge who agreed with her agenda rather than the constitution.

 

[hpm]

I don't really understand how anyone can say the second amendment doesn't cover a specific firearm. So tell me where it specifically says it excludes these firearms.

^^^^This! Especially when at the time the 2A was written private citizens were using the exact same firearms as the military.

 

[endus]

With this "win" will she now prosecute or will the vagueness issue still prevent her from doing so?

Why bother? It seems to have had most of the intended effect.

If there's one thing that this AGs office is good at, it's bullying people where a lawsuit may not actually be possible. It's true outside of the firearms world as well. Taking this to court would just create more problems. Unless there is a mass rebellion of dealers selling ARs I seriously doubt the juice is going to be worth the squeeze.

 

[Glockster30]

no she won't. she never intended for anything to get to court. the ruling is bogus. If it goes to a higher court with a real judge it would be overturned. She got lucky as she had a judge who agreed with her agenda rather than the constitution.

Why bother? It seems to have had most of the intended effect.

If there's one thing that this AGs office is good at, it's bullying people where a lawsuit may not actually be possible. It's true outside of the firearms world as well. Taking this to court would just create more problems. Unless there is a mass rebellion of dealers selling ARs I seriously doubt the juice is going to be worth the squeeze.

Well, if she is not going to prosecute, why would we follow this BS?

 

[45collector]

F' it. I don't even care anymore. Come kick my door in and be prepared to lose a few of your jackboots before you drop me.

Nah that's not how it will go though. Threatening letters will come and we each have to decide what to do. What happens if you just completely ignore them? Are they going to come knocking?

 

[second]

Another judge that cant read.

 

[drgrant]

I feel so much better since your intuitions served us so well with the Vermont laws...

Come on man. Can you not see the writing? Smell it in the air..?

There is no writing here. Why hasn't the AG prosecuted a single person in the better part of 2+ years? Oh wait, it could be that even she doesn't actually believe in the legal validity of her own edict.

-Mike

 

[Glockster30]

There is no writing here. Why hasn't the AG prosecuted a single person in the better part of 2+ years? Oh wait, it could be that even she doesn't actually believe in the legal validity of her own edict.

-Mike

Again, why should anyone be concerned if she is not going to prosecute?

 

[robjax]

Another judge that cant read.

the judge can read, they just don't give a shit. they are going to push their agenda.....as long as nobody stands up to they will continue to push. Trump is a waste as well. He should be supporting 2A and speaking out against these unconstitutional bans and idiot judges.

 

[45collector]

Again, why should anyone be concerned if she is not going to prosecute?

Because the precedent they are setting is alarming.

 

[Oldarmy]

Well, if she is not going to prosecute, why would we follow this BS?

Now you're learning, It's toothless tiger.

 

[Glockster30]

Because the precedent they are setting is alarming.

"Alarming" is not a reason to ignore her edict if she isn't going to prosecute.

 

[ToddDubya]

the judge can read, they just don't give a shit. they are going to push their agenda.....as long as nobody stands up to they will continue to push. Trump is a waste as well. He should be supporting 2A and speaking out against these unconstitutional bans and idiot judges.

I'll be sure to not vote for that judge next time he's up for re-election.

 

[45collector]

"Alarming" is not a reason to ignore her edict if she isn't going to prosecute.

I specifically remember her saying "At this time."

 

[Glockster30]

I specifically remember her saying "At this time."

Okay, so just carry on as before and after 7/20/16 until "at this time" comes. She would have to announce in the Boston Glob opinion piece that "this time" has arrived and that would be just as stupid as the original edict.

 

[Asaltweapon]

I'll be sure to not vote for that judge next time he's up for re-election.

When was the last time you voted for a judge?

 

[ToddDubya]

When was the last time you voted for a judge?

Exactly. What is my recourse to a shit judge?

 

[second]

When was the last time you voted for a judge?

Sarcasm, i imagine

 

[ProGun]

I see this POS was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985. Can't win, I tell ya.

 

[Lucas McCain]

I feel for you my brothers and sisters, I got so sick of this BS that I moved to NH 3 months ago. F mass, I hope I never have to cross the border again.

 

[drgrant]

I see this POS was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985. Can't win, I tell ya.

The pubbies have had a lot of constitutionally shitty judicial appointments, either turncoats or what have you.

We got Souter (Bush) and Stevens (Ford) (now both retired) from "R" presidents....

There's probably more but those are just the two I can think of off the top of my head.

-Mike

 

[mjbff]

Shall not be infringed . What laws is she going to change next?

 

[Lokdog]

I just don't understand how the judge reasons that the 2A doesn't include a semi-auto rifle because it "was originally based on a design of a military weapon". Well, doesn't every firearm fit that mold? Handguns and certain(?) long guns are protected? They were at one time and still are utilized by the military also? Where and how, legally, do you draw that line with any reasoning? I guess if Eugene Stoner had definitely said "No, my intention was a civilian rifle but then realized it could be used by the military", but unfortunately that ship has sailed. Very frustrating