Can't Wait for Coakley's Response

[teaser452]

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.

I understand, but if that is the injury Mass citizens are suffering, can't that EXACt same argument be used to defeat the AWB? Because only a couple states suffer under that.

The 2A protects law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms in common use. AR-15s with suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks are guns in common use. The plaintiffs are law abiding citizens. The dealers must be used to buy AR-15s with suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks. The inability for dealers to sell AR-15s with suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks, which are guns in common use, to law abiding citizens is the harm

Again, you're the lawyer, I am not. I hope we win, and then wait for the next draconian regulation made up out of thin air that is not voted on by anyone.

 

[browncoat]

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.

It is not merely an opinion that the regulations are ambiguous. The response clearly lays out the fact that the regulations don't define the terms that they use. In this case, "loaded chamber indicator" is a feature that both Glocks and M&Ps have. The AG says that M&Ps comply and Glocks don't. You cannot determine why one complies and one doesn't from the text of the regulation. Therefore, the regulation must be ambiguous, or you would be able to tell which one is acceptable. The AG is trying to use a case by case fiat to declare some guns compliant and others not. This is what Comm2A is challenging, her ability to define things outside of regulation. If she wrote and published regulations that clearly defined why a Glock is "bad", then this case would not be necessary. A different case might be able to be raised then.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I understand, but if that is the injury Mass citizens are suffering, can't that EXACt same argument be used to defeat the AWB? Because only a couple states suffer under that.

The 2A protects law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms in common use. AR-15s with suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks are guns in common use. The plaintiffs are law abiding citizens. The dealers must be used to buy AR-15s with suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks. The inability for dealers to sell AR-15s with suppressors, bayonet lugs and folding stocks, which are guns in common use, to law abiding citizens is the harm

Again, you're the lawyer, I am not. I hope we win, and then wait for the next draconian regulation made up out of thin air that is not voted on by anyone.

I'm not sure that the court would go along with voiding the AWB, since the differences between an AW AR-15 and a post-ban compliant AR-15 are largely cosmetic. Nothing stops us from buying (or dealer from selling) the latter. It would be nice if they agreed, but I just think that is a much tougher case to win.

 

[Beansie]

It is not merely an opinion that the regulations are ambiguous. The response clearly lays out the fact that the regulations don't define the terms that they use. In this case, "loaded chamber indicator" is a feature that both Glocks and M&Ps have. The AG says that M&Ps comply and Glocks don't. You cannot determine why one complies and one doesn't from the text of the regulation. Therefore, the regulation must be ambiguous, or you would be able to tell which one is acceptable. The AG is trying to use a case by case fiat to declare some guns compliant and others not. This is what Comm2A is challenging, her ability to define things outside of regulation. If she wrote and published regulations that clearly defined why a Glock is "bad", then this case would not be necessary. A different case might be able to be raised then.

So basically if the AG followed the official list of tested pistols this case would be pointless? Because that list has clear guidelines and isn't discriminatory based on brand name like the AG rules appear to be?

If the answer to those are yes, the assumption that S&W is lobbying for the glock ban becomes even more likely in my mind.

 

[terraformer]

I understand, but if that is the injury Mass citizens are suffering, can't that EXACt same argument be used to defeat the AWB?

No, but it can be used to sustain standing. To defeat the AWB and the AGs regs, one must show that this injury is unconstitutional. We are about to do that in the latter case, the AWB we will get to eventually.

I hope we win, and then wait for the next draconian regulation made up out of thin air that is not voted on by anyone.

Then we will file another suit.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what Comm2A is challenging, her ability to define things outside of regulation. If she wrote and published regulations that clearly defined why a Glock is "bad", then this case would not be necessary. A different case might be able to be raised then.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

 

[Mudfish]

I had the same reaction.

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

I thought it was a typo at first.

 

[soam]

Here's part of the AG's argument:

“Pictures of the Glock load indicator device shown in Complaint exhibits 42 and 43 do not show
any discernible diference in the load indicator before the gun is loaded and after the gun is
loaded, let alone an ‘obvious’ or ‘evident’ one.” Motion to Dismis, p. 12.
“These manual excerpts show guns with colored indicators that provide a shading contrast to
demonstrate (1) the location of the load indicator and (2) that cartridges are in the firing
chamber.”
5 Id., 14. On the other hand, the Glock device, as sen in the Exhibits to the Complaint, is not colored and
does not provide such a contrast.” Id.

So, dealer takes in Glock, paints the top of the extractor red, and BOOM! No more problem. Right, Martha?

 

[hillman]

Here's part of the AG's argument:

So, dealer takes in Glock, paints the top of the extractor red, and BOOM! No more problem. Right, Martha?

I'm color blind. How can I tell if my gun is loaded? Answer, I'm not an idiot...

 

[ToddDubya]

I expected this to be some boring, dry legalese-packed document. Boy was I wrong.

Is the informal tone normal for this type of rebuttal? It's not disrespectful, just a little more familiar than I expected.

 

[73BLow]

I expected this to be some boring, dry legalese-packed document. Boy was I wrong.

Is the informal tone normal for this type of rebuttal? It's not disrespectful, just a little more familiar than I expected.

I thought the the same thing. It was like a sophisticated pimp-slap.

 

[Bison]

I'm not sure that the court would go along with voiding the AWB, since the differences between an AW AR-15 and a post-ban compliant AR-15 are largely cosmetic. Nothing stops us from buying (or dealer from selling) the latter. It would be nice if they agreed, but I just think that is a much tougher case to win.

They are not cosmetic! I cannot have an adjustable stock which means I have to have a different rifle for each size member of my family. That is a poll tax.

 

[jtnf]

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

 

[exo]

Impressive legal jiu jitsu from Comm2A as usual. Nice work fellas.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I thought the the same thing. It was like a sophisticated pimp-slap.

It reads like Rob Boudrie wrote it!

 

[NewGuyRay]

How about the per se folly of relying on the as a safety device in the first place? My understanding is that the LCI was never really designed to be a safety device in the first place and relying on it as such potentially creates a dangerous complacency that runs counter to consumer safety.

 

[goodzilla]

I had the same reaction.

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

I find both dictionary entries very compelling and appropriately used.

u·kase

yo͞oˈkās,-ˈkāz/
noun
noun: ukase; plural noun: ukases

• an edict of the Russian government.
  "Tsar Alexander I issued his famous ukase unilaterally decreeing the North Pacific Coast Russian territory"
  
  
  • an arbitrary command.
    "defying the publisher in the very building from which he had issued his ukase"
    
    
    
  
  
  
  

 

[groundscrapers]

 

[JuergenG]

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

The Czar's regulations.

 

[jtnf]

Another closely related stark example of a Masachusets statutory definition deviating from the common
knowledge, traditional and common sense meaning of an everyday word is the absence of a definition of “handgun”
in the General Laws, though the word is used in three separate sections, including one that imposes felony criminal
liabilty for its violation. In fact, M.G.L. c140 §121 inexplicably substitutes the word “firearm” (an entire genre of
arms, i.e. “edged weapons”) for one of its members—“handguns”—while providing separate definitions for other
members of the genre, e.g. rifles and shotguns. This unique feature of Masachusets law defies logic and common
sense: it is similar to substituting “fowl” for “chickens” while providing separate definitions for ducks and geese.

I'm imagine that there was much giggling when this footnote was crafted.

 

[jasons]

How about the per se folly of relying on the as a safety device in the first place? My understanding is that the LCI was never really designed to be a safety device in the first place and relying on it as such potentially creates a dangerous complacency that runs counter to consumer safety.

Stop talking sense, you're confusing the overlords.

 

[rwl1955]

wow, not only is Coakley's minions arrogant but they're not very bright. I guess they figure they can get away w/anything regarding firearms in this State.

 

[inerlogic]

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).

i'm injured by having to pay $700 for a gen4 glock from a dealer who has set that as the price they're willing to accept from me for selling me a $400 gun that marsha outlawed.....

since i won't do that, i'm injured by having to trust my safety to a 20+ year old "police turn in" gen2 glock with more miles on it than marsha's shriveled, wrinkly s*****.

 

[jtnf]

I'm injured in that Federal law dictates dealer-only interstate transfers of handguns (in recipients state,) and Massachusetts CMR prevents such transfer - I have been gifted a Glock 22c that I can not transfer into Massachusetts under current CMRs.

 

[inerlogic]

I'm injured in that Federal law dictates dealer-only interstate transfers of handguns (in recipients state,) and Massachusetts CMR prevents such transfer - I have been gifted a Glock 22c that I can not transfer into Massachusetts under current CMRs.

1) get a C&R
2) write a letter to the ATF asking the G22c be placed on the C&R list because of it's rarity and scarcity in MA due to our over-regulation B.S.
3) ????
4) profit!

 

[terraformer]

I'm injured in that Federal law dictates dealer-only interstate transfers of handguns (in recipients state,) and Massachusetts CMR prevents such transfer - I have been gifted a Glock 22c that I can not transfer into Massachusetts under current CMRs.

You should have been a plaintiff. When this suit is over, ping us if your situation doesn't improve.

 

[inerlogic]

NGCCFA40

 

[Dadstoys]

So would it be safe to determine for those of us who get a migraine reading leagalize , That she's using the "Because I said it is, and that's all you need to know." defense ?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It reads like Rob Boudrie wrote it!

Nope, I had nothing to do with drafting that reply, but thanks for the compliment.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

So would it be safe to determine for those of us who get a migraine reading leagalize , That she's using the "Because I said it is, and that's all you need to know." defense ?

Was thinking the same thing. BTW my head hurts

 

[lancecolonel]

Its an easy read, lots of references but not full of legalese.