AG wins her gun ban

Of course,and I'm not referring to the majority of people on NES not residing in MA..I'm talking about the very vocal minority that only seem to post in threads about MA laws then proceed to call anyone who lives in MA an idiot and then patting themselves on the back about how smart and awesome they are.

It gets really old.

When I eventually get my act together and exit this state, I promise not to lord it over anyone. Except BlindCosmicChemist.
 
I believe there is a step between this guy and the SJC. Correct ?
This senile libitard shitstain isn't the last and final word on this.
I would also imagine that there may be judges on the circuit court that might be somewhere in the middle that would be offended by that turd Young's insult to Scallia .
The guy was highly respected by both sides of the aisle.
 
No step between this and SJC, both Healey suits are in federal court, MA courts will never get a sniff of this, thank god.

There is indeed a step between this decision and the USSC. Before this attempts to go to the USSC, it has to be heard by the 1st District Court.
 
Say Maura did prosecute, what's the penalty for a single offense? Would it apply to both the buyer and FFL, or just one of those?

I'm thinking of a scenario the day after another Gorsuch is confirmed after RBG dies - where one of us (with spotless record) that means it when they talk of sacrifice - publicly purchases on AR15 that was legal on 7/19.

Well and her little unicorn world you would be punished by whatever the statute is in the original Mass AWB which is some kind of a felony I don't remember.... I'd be pretty surprised if anybody actually got prosecuted for this though- this entire thing is a big political stunt for her... she's basically abusing her position and the legal system as her own little anti gun/moonbat bully pulpit.... actually prosecuting somebody would basically force her into a different legal posture... it's much cheaper for her to allow the "gun owners afraid of their own shadow run around, flap their arms and bray/whine about how the "AG is coming to get us, woe is us! etcetera". To an anti piece of shit like her the propaganda / political value from the ongoing suffering of gun owners is worth much more than any court victory is.... as long as this circus continues she can keep just pointing at it and going "look what I did about the guns" or similar horse shit like that....
 
Last edited:
This is pretty big. I don't see how the Supreme Court could choose not to hear this. It involves all of the gun owners in an entire state. If this case is not heard by the Supreme Court, Healy could declare us all felons and we could all lose our LTC's. Maybe that's her plan. Geez, then she would be the dem that got all of the guns in Ma. off of the streets.

I don't think you understand how the supreme court operates.... basically if there is as little as five words in a sentence that don't make sense in a filing the entire thing will be denied cert... I forget what the number exactly is but the odds going in of being granted cert I think are less than like 1 chance in 4...
 
I don't think M60 understands how the supreme court operates.... basically if there is as little as five words in a sentence that don't make sense in a filing the entire thing will be denied cert... I forget what the number exactly is but the odds going in of being granted cert I think are less than like 1 chance in 4...

I think this is an area where I have a bit more experience than you.

In not one, but TWO episodes of Boston Legal, Denny Crane and Alan Shore brought cases to the Supreme Court and WON. It was a piece of cake. If memory serves, Denny had a side bet that he could get one of the justices to crack a smile and he DID.

I'll be here all the week. Please tip your waitstaff.

/endinterlude
 
So is NRA going to support an appeal? It would seem that if appealed and overturned, it would be quite a victory.

Though far from overturning and appealing, I’m sure GOAL, NRA, Comm2A, SAF, GOA are not going to tell us what they will or will not do. I’ve come to learn that that’s just how it goes. When they have something to say, they’ll say it.

To the legal eagles here, do you happen to know if the Kolbe case can be re-petitioned for the next SCOTUS session or are you given one chance to petition a certain case and then it’s dead on the vine?
 
There is indeed a step between this decision and the USSC. Before this attempts to go to the USSC, it has to be heard by the 1st District Court.
Two steps.
1. First district, 3 judge panel
2. First district, en banc (if they choose to take it).

All will be rubber stamps of the decision. There is not a chance the 1st will overrule the existing decision. Too bad the case was based on 2A claims and "ambiguity" rather than overreach outside the strictures of the statute.

How long do they have to survive to be a valid plaintiff? Just until the suit gets filed?

-Mike

I was thinking more of "you can't prosecute a dead person".

Though, I was recently in a fatal accident in which the decedent was clearly at fault. It took the police a month to allow the release of the accident report the officer wrote because the DA had to decide if (s)he was going to dig up the driver to prosecute for vehicular homicide.
 
Last edited:
All will be rubber stamps of the decision. There is not a chance the 1st will overrule the existing decision. Too bad the case was based on 2A claims and "ambiguity" rather than overreach outside the strictures of the statute.
Why not re file on the overreach claim?
Btw on FB NRA said they’d help out.
 
I was thinking more of "you can't prosecute a dead person".

True, but I guess my point is don't you still have to have standing? For example, at what point would Miller have had to die (in US v Miller) for the case to have never
happened? Can dead people have standing?

Though, I was recently in a fatal accident in which the decedent was clearly at fault. It took the police a month to allow the release of the accident report the officer wrote because the DA had to decide if (s)he was going to dig up the driver to prosecute for vehicular homicide.

LOL... I'm guessing said DA/ADA is dumber than a box of rocks... or nobody told them "hey the person you want to prosecute is dead. "

-Mike
 
When I eventually get my act together and exit this state, I promise not to lord it over anyone. Except BlindCosmicChemist.

Ya,it's not you.honestly I have no idea where you live,I just enjoy your posts..Like I see a namedpipes post and I think funny guy with creepy corn eating transexual avatar.There are some people I know what state they live in not because it says it under their name,it's because their only posts are about how awesome they are for moving,how stupid I am for staying, and how they can buy any gun they want whenever a thread comes up about some stupid new gun law...Those are the people I am referring to.
 
I don't think you understand how the supreme court operates.... basically if there is as little as five words in a sentence that don't make sense in a filing the entire thing will be denied cert... I forget what the number exactly is but the odds going in of being granted cert I think are less than like 1 chance in 4...

That being said, I would like to think that the legal staff handling this would be responsible enough to word this carefully and correctly. Assuming they do word it correctly, this is a big legal mater affecting thousands of people as I'm sure the Supreme Court knows.
 
Too bad the case was based on 2A claims and "ambiguity" rather than overreach outside the strictures of the statute.
It makes sense to aim for first base repeatedly rather than strive for a home run. Just like how the antis are chipping away piece by piece.
 
Of course,and I'm not referring to the majority of people on NES not residing in MA..I'm talking about the very vocal minority that only seem to post in threads about MA laws then proceed to call anyone who lives in MA an idiot and then patting themselves on the back about how smart and awesome they are.

It gets really old.
Especially when all the people that told you to move to Vermont now have guns laws that are getting as strict as ours. New Hampshire is next. The anti’s don’t give up.
 
Seth Moulton‏ @sethmoulton 24 hours ago

This case proves what most Americans already know to be true: we can take common sense steps to get weapons of war off our streets without infringing on the Second Amendment. This is a victory for gun safety, and I'm proud of @maura_healey and Massachusetts for leading the way.
Seth is such a girly name, I wonder if he talks with a lisp? He has no balls, he left them overseas. What a duechnozzel.
 
You still dont get it do you?

Folks arent gloating.....they're trying to get folks still in piss holes like mAss to wake up and GTFO before its too late......

You're the frog in a slowly warming pot.....

You can make a choice and start working towards getting out ASAP and function as reinforcements in a relatively free state while incrementally defunding the tyrants in mAss OR you can continue to be a tax mule to fund the pro tyranny agenda and support mAss's representation in the US House.

Sad thing is that if 50% of the pro freedom folks in states like mAss were to move to pro freedom states it would change the election numbers in our favor permanently and defund states like Mass.....


Unfortunately, It looks like gun friendly states, even Vermont, now are turning against guns in the wake of mass shootings. Since gun owners all migrating to gun friendly states is pretty unrealistic, we had better come up with a better plan than the one you offered here.
 
Last edited:
Other states will hold this up as settled law. No AR's under the second amendment. Question next is what other guns will be decreed not protected. If the AR15 is not protected because they claim it is based on a military weapon then I submit that every 1911 is also not protected. And if the military adopts a firearm does that mean it is now not protected (Sig P320).
I may be making an ass out of myself stating this cuz Im no 2A scholar but here goes...
Back in the day they grabbed a hillbilly (Miller) with a sawed-off shotgun and the govs case was based on the the understanding that the 2A referred to military weapons and his shotgun wasnt in military use so therefore it wasnt protected under the 2A. Now were at the point where the gov is saying the complete opposite and their cases are based on the understanding that the AR is a military weapon, therefore it isnt covered under the 2A? Is that correct?
 
The NSSF case is based on this. The Comm2A is based on the unconstitutionality of the REAL AWB and magazine restrictions.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Comm2A had very little to do with the direction and focus both this case and the NSSF case. Unfortunately. (Edit: In other words, they weren't driving the bus).

In my experience (as an observer from the internet), Comm2A is very careful and narrow in their cases. I don't know how this situation happened, but I expect that both cases the parties were eager to "do something" and managed to do so before Comm2A could. This last part is complete conjecture.
 
Gotta ask yourself...

When is the other hammer going to drop?

God I hate this f***ing state.

I'm a few years away from MA and still following all this BS. FL has been having it's own challenges to be sure, but far better than MA and I'm glad I was not there to see that verdict, which being in MA, should come as a surprise to no one.
 
I may be making an ass out of myself stating this cuz Im no 2A scholar but here goes...
Back in the day they grabbed a hillbilly (Miller) with a sawed-off shotgun and the govs case was based on the the understanding that the 2A referred to military weapons and his shotgun wasnt in military use so therefore it wasnt protected under the 2A. Now were at the point where the gov is saying the complete opposite and their cases are based on the understanding that the AR is a military weapon, therefore it isnt covered under the 2A? Is that correct?

The Supreme Court was wrong then as well. It was clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms. Makes you wish the founding fathers had left out the part about the militia, but they probably figured "shall not be infringed" was clear enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom