I nominate you to get that done!
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley
- Thread starter BostonBullit
- Start date
I nominate you to get that done!
I'll give it a whirl.
Eww. Order dismissing case. I honestly can't believe it went this way. I thought for sure it was a slam dunk. I guess "because I said so" is good enough. SUCK http://ia902307.us.archive.org/7/items/gov.uscourts.mad.161588/gov.uscourts.mad.161588.45.0.pdf
I'm not sure the judge understands firearms or the AG crap very well. I hope an appeal is coming.
goodzilla
NES Member
It's dismissed because the AG said "glocks are bad, umkay", and since the dealers got a letter saying glocks are bad, therefore the LCI regulations are not vague? Ow, my head hurts.
bren42970
NES Member
Wow, Really?
The lack of standing is ludicrous but it looks like even if he agreed we had standing we would have lost based on his reasoning. Cue the glocks in the classifieds suddenly going up $100.
Those judges (or those writing for them) sure come up with some petty-ass excuses and interpretations of case law. Asshats....
-JR
-JR
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
It will be appealed. This would never have been dismissed if it didn't involve guns.
There are all sorts of ways to communicate. Just because you are prohibited from publishing pamphlets does not mean your right to free speech has been violated. You knew you couldn't do it. The office supply stores knew they couldn't sell you blank pamphlet paper. We were clear about that. Whether you, the commoner, comprehend why we have banned pamphlets and not, say, hanging posters or giving speeches, is of no consequence. We are the government and we get to make these decisions.
Wow. That judge is a complete asshat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
71montess
NES Member
Nathaniel is a Democratic rump swab who couldn't shine the shoes of half the 2A lawyers fighting for our rights. Thank you Comm2A.
This whole thing confuses the living bejeesus out of me. How am I able to have my M&P Shield which only has a "hole" in the top of the slide to act as a "loaded chamber indicator", yet the Glocks are a no-go because the LCI is not extractor-based...I'm not complaining, but WTF-Over?
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,196
- Likes
- 3,361
Is this another good example of how an activist judge behaves?
You're confused because you're assuming logic has anything to do with it. Imagine a person with an emotional, visceral distate for anything black and killy-looking. Now, give that person the power to regulate handguns.
Yes, but I don't like snakes...absolutely hate them. One could say I have an emotional visceral distaste for anything that slithers and doesn't have legs. If I had the power to regulate snakes, I wouldn't let some live because they're somehow less-killy or their fangs are shorter or they hold less venom....just get rid of them all. So if you have the ability to regulate the market, why are some firearms okay, and some not, even though they have identical safety features?......Oh, wait, logic. Thanks!
Shark_Cage
NES Member
Makes me think of the Baby Killer lover Judge: Judge Hiller Zorbel, that piece of filth overturned a Jury's conviction of a child killer. Guess who was the prosecutor?
I'm wondering if at some point the entirety of the judiciary in this state can be indicted for civil rights violations by a federal entity. The pattern of blatant discrimination by the state courts is akin to the behavior of racist courts in the antebellum/segregated south denying justice to blacks. The moral and constitutional obligation to be impartial arbiters of the law seems to have been replaced with a self important sense of disdain.
This was federal court, not MA state court.
So....this points to a much more sinister concept. Judges, supposedly the non-biased party that rules us....isn't so "non-biased". That's disgusting...
Just talking out loud, ignore me.
I'm eager to hear more on this
I'll chip in on that. I think Marsha and this new tw*t need to be burned at the proverbial stake....
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Looking forward to the appeal... thats just... wrong. I'm surprised actually.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Again with potentially a stupid question, but if these loaded chamber indicators are such an important safety device, and new model Glocks do not have them so they are "dangerous", why are Police Departments not banned from purchasing/issuing them?
Time to move it up the ladder to the next court.
Thank you for fighting.
Time to move it up the ladder to the next court.
Thank you for fighting.
Logic must be met with a reprimand.
i am slapping you on the wrist for "though crimes with logical intent"
GOAL already tried the "Coakley used racist, anti-civil rights, decision (Cruikshank 1875) to indict gun owner" route.....
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
To say we were surprised by the content of this dismissal would be an understatement. The question is not that we would appeal at this point, but what to appeal and what to ignore because we can't reasonably appeal all of the errors.
Friday
NES Member
pick the most egregious ones and go from there?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
It's not that simple. You need to pick the ones that force the remand but also don't allow CA1 to foreclose the rest of the case or dismiss it on different grounds. Example, while we will mention it, the last section is the most egregious, but overruling it doesn't force the remand.
Similar threads
