If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
NO. The cases need 4 justices in favor of hearing the casedoesn't the circuit court cases get reviewed by the assigned SCOTUS Judge, and decided by that Judge for cases to be take by the full court ?
Frankly, I get tired seeing other stated having their 2A cases heard, and MA is left behind. We still have AWB, firearms roster, firearms licensing system, magazine restrictions, etc.
you could of had an extra 5 rounds in your mag then MA thoColorado was on my shortlist for a move years ago (was ready to go) until the mag ban.
Good thing I did not move there.
But hippies and pot. Lol.you could of had an extra 5 rounds in your mag then MA tho
Gotcha - thanks for clarifying. I used the thread below as a referenceNO. The cases need 4 justices in favor of hearing the case
"Each of the thirteen federal circuit courts is assigned one Supreme Court Justice who then considers certain appeals (e.g., emergency requests and other matters) from his or her assigned circuit while other aspects of the case are still pending. The Chief Justice of the United States is responsible, under 28 U.S.C. 42, for allotting circuit justices “in vacation.”
MA STATE BOI trying to bait us.There is no way I would ever, under circumstances, register a gun in this Commieweath state. Can't seize something not in your name!
I have never heard you have to have proof of purchase date??? NO the govt does not maintain a firearms registry, so we are told, the selling FFL is required to keep those records for the life of the FFL, or return them to virginia if FFL ceases business. ATF can ask FFL for info on the 4473 if they are trying to track something downThere is one thing I don't understand. Why do people have to maintain proof of when a gun was purchased when we have to do a 4473. Doesn't the gov have access to 4473?
Or couldn't a gun owner at least request the record?
All this sh*t is electronic now.
Here:I have never heard you have to have proof of purchase date??? NO the govt does not maintain a firearms registry, so we are told, the selling FFL is required to keep those records for the life of the FFL, or return them to virginia if FFL ceases business. ATF can ask FFL for info on the 4473 if they are trying to track something down
Should the bill pass, current owners of firearms that state officials classify as “assault weapons” may be grandfathered in and excluded from the ban if certain conditions are met, including maintaining paperwork showing legal ownership prior to the effective date of the bill
Here:
So, assuming no one keeps their receipts, or at least most people lost them. I am guessing if this passes and you want to comply, either CO will need a way to register the gun (if they don't have it), or take pictures and Email them to yourself.
Assuming you want to comply
If politicians ignore the law, why would you obey their rules?I like to be optimistic, but Andrea Campbell is at a whole 'nother level of radical anti-2A insanity. If and until slapped down, I expect her to ignore Bruen.
Even CT gun control advocates are saying there is no appetite to require surrendering of legally owned assault weapons. I don't see the forced turn in of guns happening in MassachusettsContrary to others beliefs about our overlords in the Executive branch of the state, this is what I fully expect from MA in the next few months sans grandfathering. They will pull a NY/CT because MA sucks and can't be outdone by those states...
The ban hammer is coming. Make your exit plans now or comply and STFU.
I don't plan of surviving if they come for my guns but I also don't plan on being shot in the back of the head like so many others who have given up their guns throughout history either. It's time to wake up and realize what the hell is going on in this country before its too late!
That's one of those great philosophical questions for all time. You can apply it to almost any law anywhere.If politicians ignore the law, why would you obey their rules?
The fist part of your question happened yesterday in Illinois and is waiting on the governor's signature. Soon as it is signed a lawsuit will be filed. The next step will be the case working its way though the lower courts, and probably and emergency injunction like what happened in WA stateThat's one of those great philosophical questions for all time. You can apply it to almost any law anywhere.
The more important question for right now is what happens when a leftist anti-2A state passes an unconstitutional law in bold defiance of Bruen? The next step should be that SCOTUS slaps them down, right? But what happens when the leftist anti-2A state defies SCOTUS and doesn't comply? What will SCOTUS do about that? What can SCOTUS do about that?
That's kind of like where we are today in Massachusetts, albeit with a different timeline and for different reasons. Will the MA legislature defy Bruen and destroy us this session as they have vowed to do? Or will Bruen cause them to rethink their plan? Stay tuned because it's going to get interesting.
From your keyboard to God's in-box!Some extreme ban (confiscation etc) would suck short term, but it might hasten the end of the AWB here in MA. Such laws simply cannot survive anymore as they are so clearly unconstitutional. The bizarre games being played by the left may buy them some time, but it’s over.
I confess that there are too many attacks on 2A happening in too many leftist states for me to keep track day-to-day, but my impression is that we've won some and lost some so far... not necessarily permanently, but at least for the time being. But my question still stands: What happens when the leftist anti-2A states openly defy SCOTUS and simply decide not to comply with Bruen or anything else 2A-related?The first part of your question happened yesterday in Illinois and is waiting on the governor's signature. Soon as it is signed a lawsuit will be filed. The next step will be the case working its way though the lower courts, and probably and emergency injunction like what happened in WA state
so far based on what factually happens - governors just enact regulations and pass them to police for execution ignoring any factual litigation and decisions of courts, so, dunno how and why anything scotus says matters. the executive branch finds ways to bypass long brewing legal directives any time, and police straight ignores everything except direct orders issued by governor and AG.Some extreme ban (confiscation etc) would suck short term, but it might hasten the end of the AWB here in MA. Such laws simply cannot survive anymore as they are so clearly unconstitutional. The bizarre games being played by the left may buy them some time, but it’s over.
and while all that happens, police will be enforcing unconstitutional rulings with a fullest severity as it always does against the middle class suburbs.The fist part of your question happened yesterday in Illinois and is waiting on the governor's signature. Soon as it is signed a lawsuit will be filed. The next step will be the case working its way though the lower courts, and probably and emergency injunction like what happened in WA state
The Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction on Ny. It goes into effect.The fist part of your question happened yesterday in Illinois and is waiting on the governor's signature. Soon as it is signed a lawsuit will be filed. The next step will be the case working its way though the lower courts, and probably and emergency injunction like what happened in WA state
The MA AWB is going to cease to exist in the MGLs. And, of course, things have already dramatically changed in MA with the end of restricted permits.so far based on what factually happens - governors just enact regulations and pass them to police for execution ignoring any factual litigation and decisions of courts, so, dunno how and why anything scotus says matters. the executive branch finds ways to bypass long brewing legal directives any time, and police straight ignores everything except direct orders issued by governor and AG.
and once police arrests you and ruins your life forcing you into the litigation - the scotus decisions are not going to be very relevant for your personal situation.
Not saying the road won't be bumpy and there will probably be some District and Appeals Court "victories" but the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions establish strong precedents that will make bans near impossible. Just my opinion.I don't share your enthusiasm for SCOTUS.
The 1st circuit Court (MA) is assigned to Jackson
I believe they declined to lift a stay on a previously issued injunction because the case is being heard very soonThe Supreme Court declined to issue an injunction on Ny. It goes into effect.
Bottom line: For now and until something changes, the insane leftist anti-2A pols of New York are getting away with it.I believe they declined to lift a stay on a previously issued injunction because the case is being heard very soon
"The gun owners “should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Justice Alito wrote."
yeah, but you need to understand, this is the standard operating procedure of the judicial system.Bottom line: For now and until something changes, the insane leftist anti-2A pols of New York are getting away with it.
I think Mr Johnson swung do to a shortcoming in local gov''t....... noone is perfect.no shit. it is very well known, what way the system works.