Can't Wait for Coakley's Response

[Shovelheddrew]

To work around an EMP, you just set up the electronics to fail unsafe. It's like electronic door locks - in the case of a fire/power outage, they are generally supposed to unlock when they fail so people can escape.

Or you fail them to safe if you are a controlling government?

Whats to say the device would work at all. Electronics can break after an EMP its not just a matter of powering back up.

Sorry. Back to martha.

 

[Whutmeworry]

Folks, let's get back to issues with the lawsuit. You can start a smart-gun thread if you wish.

Here, here.

Based on my totally amateur understanding of how court cases proceed, it would appear this is just a very preliminary step in the process, and that we can expect Comm2a to counter Coakley's move to dismiss the suit, only to have her stall again by issuing another non-answer to Comm2a's response.

By way of comparison I noticed there are presently 22 separate filings in the Davis vs Grimes "suitability" case on the Comm2a site originally (filed in Feb 2013) and it looks (again from a layperson's perspective) like the case isn't even close to being decided yet. I know every case is unique, but this would seem to indicate that it could be quite some time before we see anything definitive.

Just my unqualified .02 cents worth. Maybe Terraformer can chime in here again and get us back on track.

 

[drgrant]

Folks, let's get back to issues with the lawsuit. You can start a smart-gun thread if you wish.

This. I even deleted my post. If someone wants to start another thread about this trash, feel free to.

-Mike

 

[yanici]

Seems to me that this smart gun stuff is just a red herring. Take your new smart gun home when you need to buy one. Open it up. Go onto You-Tube and follow the directions on how to disable the interlock.

 

[jar]

Here, here.

Based on my totally amateur understanding of how court cases proceed, it would appear this is just a very preliminary step in the process, and that we can expect Comm2a to counter Coakley's move to dismiss the suit, only to have her stall again by issuing another non-answer to Comm2a's response.

By way of comparison I noticed there are presently 22 separate filings in the Davis vs Grimes "suitability" case on the Comm2a site originally (filed in Feb 2013) and it looks (again from a layperson's perspective) like the case isn't even close to being decided yet. I know every case is unique, but this would seem to indicate that it could be quite some time before we see anything definitive.

Just my unqualified .02 cents worth. Maybe Terraformer can chime in here again and get us back on track.

Davis is sitting waiting for a decision. It could come out at any time, but I'm guessing about a year.

My understanding of Draper is that the next step will be a Comm2A response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The AG may or may not get to reply to that. Then the judge will either schedule a hearing or rule on the motion to dismiss. If the dismissal is granted, the next step would be an appeal to the 1st circuit. If it's denied, there will likely be a scheduling conference with the parties and the judge to set out the next step. Most likely at that point would be a briefing schedule and then a hearing for cross motions for summary judgement, assuming there aren't any facts in dispute, just law.

I'm just a layperson with no inside info, but I follow a lot of these cases, so I'm in the ballpark.

 

[fshalor]

Thanks for these, this was the sort of clarification I was hoping to find. Looks like the Germans were responsible.

Given the first appearances of the LCI it makes more and more sense that to think that it was there to let the user know that there was a round in the chamber when they went to use the gun. People often carried their pistols with an empty chamber and assume sometimes not. It makes sense that when you reach for your pistol to use it you'd need the ability to quickly ascertain whether there was a round in the chamber.

Couldn't that luger be fired upper-only while completely detached from the frame/grip/magwell....

I remember somethibg about it being officers traditional to clean them with a round in chamber...

 

[JuergenG]

Couldn't that luger be fired upper-only while completely detached from the frame/grip/magwell....

Yes it can be fired with the upper off the frame.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yes it can be fired with the upper off the frame.

Really? Wow, that's kookie. You learn something new everyday.

 

[browncoat]

.

 

[teaser452]

.

 

[M1911]

Enough with the off-topic BS. Next trolling/smart-gun/I'm-more-libertarian-than-thou poster gets an infraction.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Comm2A Files Opposition to AG's MTD

Opposition to Defendant's MTD.

Enjoy!

 

[The5thDentist]

Opposition to Defendant's MTD.

Enjoy!

Just opened it up. Wish I had a scone to munch on right now.

 

[teaser452]

IANAL, but the standing issue is interesting to me. My understanding is that in order to have standing, you must be injured in some way. But, in this case, there is no harm to the plaintiffs. The lack of being able to sell something, or the inability to buy something doesn't generate harm (financial or bodily loss). Wouldn't, say, someone, like Four Seasons, have to go ahead and sell Glock 4th gens, and just wait to get arrested, sued, attacked? And then fight it out in court that way?

I would bet I am wrong with my understanding of standing, otherwise, why would Comm2a be suing, so maybe someone can explain the standing issue to me? Thanks in advance.

From the document -

To establish standing, a plaintiff must “present an
injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s
challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.”

Now, there are a lot of silly regulations that restrict the ability of merchants to sell things, and for consumers to buy things. For example, it is illegal for someone to manufacture or sell a slingshot in MA, but not illegal to posess. Just like Glock 4th gens. But where does the concrete and particularized and actual or imminent injury coming from?

I know I am wrong here, but I don't know why.

 

[browncoat]

Opposition to Defendant's MTD.

Enjoy!

Only about halfway through, but this is beautiful. It will be very interesting to see how the court responds, it would be remarkable if they dismiss after this.

- - - Updated - - -

IANAL, but the standing issue is interesting to me. My understanding is that in order to have standing, you must be injured in some way. But, in this case, there is no harm to the plaintiffs. The lack of being able to sell something, or the inability to buy something doesn't generate harm (financial or bodily loss). Wouldn't, say, someone, like Four Seasons, have to go ahead and sell Glock 4th gens, and just wait to get arrested, sued, attacked? And then fight it out in court that way?

I would bet I am wrong with my understanding of standing, otherwise, why would Comm2a be suing, so maybe someone can explain the standing issue to me? Thanks in advance.

Did you read pages 6 and 7 of the PDF? I think it lays it out pretty clearly why the dealers have standing.

 

[teaser452]

I did read pages 6 and 7. I guess I need to know the definition of injury? Is what is put forward there really an injury? i.e. the lack of being able to transfer a gun to a lottery winner? I would think the actual injury would happen if you were arrested for transferring the gun to the lottery winner. Then you'd have standing to challenge the regulation. IMHO. And I am probably wrong, but that is how I understand it.

I mean, playing devil's advocate, Four Seasons isn't injured by not being able to sell Glock 4th gens. Anymore than they're injured by not being able to sell crack.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Opposition to Defendant's MTD.

Enjoy!

While I cannot comment on a Comm2a case in progress, I can say that I am grateful to Comm2A adding a new word to my vocabulary.

Read the case and the word should be obvious.

 

[browncoat]

I did read pages 6 and 7. I guess I need to know the definition of injury?

I mean, playing devil's advocate, Four Seasons isn't injured by not being able to sell Glock 4th gens. Anymore than they're injured by not being able to sell crack.

See the recent case Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. That case determined that lost sales due to false advertising gave standing to sue. In this case, it is lost sales due to regulations that are unconstitutionally vague. IF the regulations were not ambiguously defined, then there would likely not be standing to sue.

 

[browncoat]

IANAL, but the standing issue is interesting to me. My understanding is that in order to have standing, you must be injured in some way. But, in this case, there is no harm to the plaintiffs. The lack of being able to sell something, or the inability to buy something doesn't generate harm (financial or bodily loss). Wouldn't, say, someone, like Four Seasons, have to go ahead and sell Glock 4th gens, and just wait to get arrested, sued, attacked? And then fight it out in court that way?

I would bet I am wrong with my understanding of standing, otherwise, why would Comm2a be suing, so maybe someone can explain the standing issue to me? Thanks in advance.

From the document -

To establish standing, a plaintiff must “present an
injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant’s
challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.”

Now, there are a lot of silly regulations that restrict the ability of merchants to sell things, and for consumers to buy things. For example, it is illegal for someone to manufacture or sell a slingshot in MA, but not illegal to posess. Just like Glock 4th gens. But where does the concrete and particularized and actual or imminent injury coming from?

I know I am wrong here, but I don't know why.

What they are arguing in this case is not the AGs ability to enforce rules and regulations. So if Four Seasons or someone else had broken the regulations, they would not be able to argue the case that they are arguing.

 

[teaser452]

See the recent case Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. That case determined that lost sales due to false advertising gave standing to sue. In this case, it is lost sales due to regulations that are unconstitutionally vague. IF the regulations were not ambiguously defined, then there would likely not be standing to sue.

Ok, I get that. But the regulations being ambiguously defined is an opinion. Apparently, Marsha thinks they're not ambiguous and thinks when she's asked to clarify the regulation, she won't stoop to bother enlightening us retards about an obviously NOT ambiguous regulation. The case you cite, re: false advertising =(same as) vague regulation.

IANAL, and I hope we win.

 

[jtnf]

I did read pages 6 and 7. I guess I need to know the definition of injury? Is what is put forward there really an injury? i.e. the lack of being able to transfer a gun to a lottery winner? I would think the actual injury would happen if you were arrested for transferring the gun to the lottery winner. Then you'd have standing to challenge the regulation. IMHO. And I am probably wrong, but that is how I understand it.

I mean, playing devil's advocate, Four Seasons isn't injured by not being able to sell Glock 4th gens. Anymore than they're injured by not being able to sell crack.

Kind of a specious argument.
The analogy of not being able to sell illicit commodities just does not apply... It's more like "The dealers cannot sell pepperoni pizza, because I've decided that nitrites in cured meat represent a public health crisis. Residents of OTHER states can order pepperoni pizza, and specially protected classes of residents of Massachusetts can order pepperoni pizza, but plebeian citizens may not, because I SAID SO."

 

[jasons]

Kind of a specious argument.
The analogy of not being able to sell illicit commodities just does not apply... It's more like "The dealers cannot sell pepperoni pizza, because I've decided that nitrites in cured meat represent a public health crisis. Residents of OTHER states can order pepperoni pizza, and specially protected classes of residents of Massachusetts can order pepperoni pizza, but plebeian citizens may not, because I SAID SO."

It's really more like the AG saying that "only toppings with some nutritional value can be sold," not defining what nutritional value means, and then ruling that Canadian bacon is OK but ham is not.

 

[alohadoug]

It's really more like the AG saying that "only toppings with some nutritional value can be sold," not defining what nutritional value means, and then ruling that Canadian bacon is OK but ham is not.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's really more like the AG saying that "only toppings with some nutritional value can be sold," not defining what nutritional value means, and then ruling that Canadian bacon is OK but ham is not.

Now that the thread has headed towards bacon, it's only a matter of time before someone figures a cat tie-in.

 

[teaser452]

It's really more like the AG saying that "only toppings with some nutritional value can be sold," not defining what nutritional value means, and then ruling that Canadian bacon is OK but ham is not.

Right? So is Comm2a trying to hit a Home Run here, by essentially saying that limiting ANYTHING is unconstitutional? I mean, if I am reading with enough comprehension this morning, if the judge buys Comm2a's argument, then, we're heading down the track that this regulation needs to be thrown out, and ALL regulations regarding guns would need to be thrown out.

Seems like a high hurdle to jump though given case law IE: the EPA, the ATF, the NSA, etc etc etc.

 

[jasons]

Now that the thread has headed towards bacon, it's only a matter of time before someone figures a cat tie-in.

Everyone knows that Canadian bacon isn't really bacon at all.

 

[teaser452]

Everyone knows that Canadian bacon isn't really bacon at all.

[h=2]“(Lisa) “I’m going to become a vegetarian” (Homer) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?” “Yes” “Bacon?” “Yes Dad” Ham?” “Dad all those meats come from the same animal” “Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!””[/h]

 

[jasons]

Right? So is Comm2a trying to hit a Home Run here, by essentially saying that limiting ANYTHING is unconstitutional? I mean, if I am reading with enough comprehension this morning, if the judge buys Comm2a's argument, then, we're heading down the track that this regulation needs to be thrown out, and ALL regulations regarding guns would need to be thrown out.

Not really. There may be other regulations that could be attacked separately in another case, but this one is specific to the vague nature of the LCI regulation. The court could side with Comm2A and the AG could turn around and write a new regulation. (Which is probably what will happen if Comm2A wins.)

 

[soam]

While I cannot comment on a Comm2a case in progress, I can say that I am grateful to Comm2A adding a new word to my vocabulary.

Read the case and the word should be obvious.

I had the same reaction.

"Ukase? What the hell is a ukase? To Wikipedia!"

 

[terraformer]

Right? So is Comm2a trying to hit a Home Run here, by essentially saying that limiting ANYTHING is unconstitutional? I mean, if I am reading with enough comprehension this morning, if the judge buys Comm2a's argument, then, we're heading down the track that this regulation needs to be thrown out, and ALL regulations regarding guns would need to be thrown out.

Seems like a high hurdle to jump though given case law IE: the EPA, the ATF, the NSA, etc etc etc.

Uh, no. Follow along. The 2A protects law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms in common use. Glocks are guns in common use. The plaintiffs are law abiding citizens. The dealers must be used to buy Glocks. The inability for dealers to sell Glocks, which are guns in common use, to law abiding citizens is the harm.