Can't Wait for Coakley's Response

[alohadoug]

My first two purchases will be A glock 20 and a Glock 29. For that 10mm craving that I have.

That's the only Glock that my wife likes. Might be able to convince her to get one once this goes thru to finish...

Aloha

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Make sure you advertise it as a "Martha Coakley Special!"

By the time this is settled there will be a new AG and hence a new defendant. If we win it will probably be 'Draper v. Tolman'. I can get to like that.

 

[SJan]

By the time this is settled there will be a new AG and hence a new defendant. If we win it will probably be 'Draper v. Tolman'. I can get to like that.

And Bob can shoot in Production with his new Glock 34

 

[Glockfan71]

Goes in a coma. Comes out of the coma and is pro gun.

This. Lmao

Fired from my HTC One with high capacity storage

 

[mpkeelee]

By the time this is settled there will be a new AG and hence a new defendant. If we win it will probably be 'Draper v. Tolman'. I can get to like that.

The Marsha Tolman Special

It fits

 

[Reptile]

Well, today is the big day...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

By the time this is settled there will be a new AG and hence a new defendant. If we win it will probably be 'Draper v. Tolman'. I can get to like that.

DvC - USPSA motto, or case name
DvT - Deep Vein Thrombosis or case name

Either works

---

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well, today is the big day...

No, the AG's reply is not due until tomorrow.

 

[Kicker96FS]

I predict her reply will be "It's for the children". The Judge will get all watery eyed and say "good enough for me".

 

[Bill Katt]

So, what happens if she gives no response?

 

[BattleSnail]

So, what happens if she gives no response?

I'd think that would be contempt of court, unless she's allowed to file some extension or something.

 

[Bill Katt]

I'd think that would be contempt of court, unless she's allowed to file some extension or something.

If it was contempt of court, who would go after her? Herself?

 

[terraformer]

So, what happens if she gives no response?

They are allowed to not respond, but to file a MTD instead. I actually already know what they will be doing by tomorrow. We will see something from them and you folks may be disappointed, but less disappointed than if they did the other thing they could have. At this stage in litigation, it's all dry BS. The fun stuff is the next round.

 

[Quiet]

Published specifics for an effective LCI?

 

[rcwhat]

They are allowed to not respond, but to file a MTD instead. I actually already know what they will be doing by tomorrow. We will see something from them and you folks may be disappointed, but less disappointed than if they did the other thing they could have. At this stage in litigation, it's all dry BS. The fun stuff is the next round.

Can't thank you guys enough, keep up the good fight.

 

[Bill Katt]

They are allowed to not respond, but to file a MTD instead. I actually already know what they will be doing by tomorrow. We will see something from them and you folks may be disappointed, but less disappointed than if they did the other thing they could have. At this stage in litigation, it's all dry BS. The fun stuff is the next round.

Thanks for the info.

 

[jar]

They are allowed to not respond, but to file a MTD instead. I actually already know what they will be doing by tomorrow. We will see something from them and you folks may be disappointed, but less disappointed than if they did the other thing they could have. At this stage in litigation, it's all dry BS. The fun stuff is the next round.

Yeah, the answers to complaints are almost always boring. Pages of things like:
Complaint
#1 Plaintiff Joe Blow is a natural person residing at 123 Fore St.
#2 Defendant John Smith is the AG of State.
#3 John Smith injured Joe Blow by infringing on his right to XYZ.

Response:
#1 Never heard of that guy, but sure
#2 John Smith cannot confirm or deny his existence or position.
#3 John Smith didn't do nothing or if he did you can't prove it or if you can it was by accident.

 

[jefftk]

Published specifics for an effective LCI?

I was wondering what would happen if they did this - make up some specific rules that still somehow exclude glocks.

 

[xcom]

Right, so safe and reliable it's the most common sidearm for police in the US, but unsafe for mere civilians.

This is the problem. Look at all the people the cops shoot with these things. They are obviously defective.

 

[goodzilla]

This is the problem. Look at all the people the cops shoot with these things. They are obviously defective.

I've heard it's just the fortays, we should be GTG with 9's and 45's, it's science.

 

[Serapis]

Interesting stuff. It's definitely a marathon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coyote33]

Right, so safe and reliable it's the most common sidearm for police in the US, but unsafe for mere civilians.

So,what is the workaround here? They will claim better trained. Will "It's a constitutional right! " be accepted by the judge?

 

[snowballs]

wasn't she talking about glocks when she said technically it's not illegal to be illegal?

 

[terraformer]

Interesting stuff. It's definitely a marathon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a marathon of marathons...

 

[silvershooter]

Martha should buy one ,,, so she can see what's in it

 

[JayMcB]

They are allowed to not respond, but to file a MTD instead. I actually already know what they will be doing by tomorrow. We will see something from them and you folks may be disappointed, but less disappointed than if they did the other thing they could have. At this stage in litigation, it's all dry BS. The fun stuff is the next round.

if you know what they're going to do....what is it?

 

[browncoat]

if you know what they're going to do....what is it?

Could be that filings that are made to the court are also made to comm2as lawyers, and that while they have access to what will be filed, it is not yet public and thus can't be shared.

 

[jefftk]

Could be that filings that are made to the court are also made to comm2as lawyers, and that while they have access to what will be filed, it is not yet public and thus can't be shared.

Or they've got a mole in the AG's office!

 

[terraformer]

Could be that filings that are made to the court are also made to comm2as lawyers, and that while they have access to what will be filed, it is not yet public and thus can't be shared.

Sort of correct. But it's not a hard and fast rule. It's just that the AAG in the case told our attorney what he was going to do yesterday and I know what he said. Ultimately I would rather take the high road and let him make it official before it is made public. If a decision is changed last minute, why make what didn't happen public.

Like I said before, this response will be more interesting than what would otherwise be filed and I will explain what is filed when it happens.

 

[terraformer]

Or they've got a mole in the AG's office!

Legal cases don't benefit from that really, at least as far as a specific case is concerned. We both know what each other's strategies are at this poin on a particular issue, at least to the extent on how we would challenge a specific issue. EOPSS actually released a document to licensing officers making it clear that there will be constitutional challenges to any suitability denials post Jam 1/2015. This is correct, we are already working on it.

The more important info to keep quiet is specific citations we plan on referencing or the order in which we will take cases. That's far more valuable info to the opposition.