Comm2A files against the AG on LCIs, Draper v Coakley

[mikes45]

Defendant responds that the load indicator regulation does
not implicate the Second Amendment b
ecause it does not impinge
on the right to bear arms in self
-
defense. She avers, moreover,
that even if it does, the regulation withstands constitutional
scrutiny. The Court agrees

Does this mean, she doesnt care what the law is and she will do what she wants?

 

[bigblue]

It means, "even if you are right, you are still wrong". Because GUN.

 

[Beansie]

Does this mean, she doesnt care what the law is and she will do what she wants?

It was a giant strawman in the first place if I remember correctly. I don't think the 2nd was invoked until she did it. And if I'm correct here, it is a sly way of her changing the conversation from "inconsistent application of rules, which makes them vague and therefore unjust because no one will ever know if they are in compliance or not in any sort of reasonable manner", into a game of "but you can still buy plenty of guns."

She changed the subject, and the Judge went for it, hook line and sinker. Honestly, it seems like the Judge doesn't even understand what the case was about. Either that, or I don't.




Sorry you guys got boned here. I'm sure it is frustrating. If you need some new tables that got destroyed, let me know.

 

[mursenary4]

Man that was a raping

 

[hv55maxx]

Man that was a raping

by a kangaroo

 

[xero2099]

cant win them all, regroup and on to the next!

 

[Mudfish]

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.

The fact that our rights hang in the balance and the winner will be the one who plays the best chess game rather than what is right or wrong is absolutely infuriating.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Logic must be met with a reprimand.
i am slapping you on the wrist for "though crimes with logical intent"

I apologize for being a free thinker, I am so wrong to think that rules should be based in logic and enforced equally!

 

[warwickben]

Any one want to explain there reason to dismiss in a pm . I under stand a little bit . But the legal talk confuses me .

 

[Bill Katt]

Any one want to explain there reason to dismiss in a pm . I under stand a little bit . But the legal talk confuses me .

It's simple, Ben.

Cuz gunz R bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhd....makay. Especially Glaocks cuz the bad guys in movies use them.
Unless ura cop.....then ur good ta go.....cuz cops R good.

 

[MachineHead]

Totally ridiculous. I'm sure there would be a fury if the matter was regarding ice cream brands. The AG's words are a perfect example of a dictatorship-mentality.

I wonder if basing an appeal on a law-abiding licensed MA resident who only wants to buy Austrian-made handguns. Would this infringe on their 2A? I mean they're not asking for an RPG or anything. Just a similar article but made in Austria.

 

[Mike S]

Nathaniel is a Democratic rump swab who couldn't shine the shoes of half the 2A lawyers fighting for our rights. Thank you Comm2A.

And this is exactly why it's a mistake to ignore the legislative process. The judges are nominated by elected officials.

 

[terraformer]

cant win them all, regroup and on to the next!

There is no next. We aren't going to let this stand.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is exactly why it's a mistake to ignore the legislative process. The judges are nominated by elected officials.

Amen. Elections have consequences.

 

[cekim]

There is no next. We aren't going to let this stand.

- - - Updated - - -
Amen. Elections have consequences.

And pulling the "R" lever isn't enough as we see here.

 

[terraformer]

And pulling the "R" lever isn't enough as we see here.

Not even close to enough. Souter, Sandra Day Oconnor, Stevens. All R appointee's. On the SJC Cordy is an R.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Not even close to enough. Souter, Sandra Day Oconnor, Stevens. All R appointee's. On the SJC Cordy is an R.

I was looking through the Mass Bar Association's newsletter from last month. There's a pic of all of the justices minus Cordy posing for a photo with the MBA President and Director. Makes me wonder if he may be an outsider on the court...

 

[economist]

Even if you can get a judge that will recognize gun rights, they can be terrible on other things that matter just as much (Scalia, for example). There are very few clear thinking libertarians in positions of power. Justice Kennedy is close, and about the only example I can think of right now apart from maybe 75% of Rand Paul.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Even if you can get a judge that will recognize gun rights, they can be terrible on other things that matter just as much (Scalia, for example). There are very few clear thinking libertarians in positions of power. Justice Kennedy is close, and about the only example I can think of right now apart from maybe 75% of Rand Paul.

I disagree with such a kind assessment of Justice Kennedy--even if he's a "clear thinking libertarian", he too often votes in whichever manner he perceives will cause history to think favorably of him.

My vote in that regard is Justice Thomas. He's a libertarian by-proxy, the proxy being an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. True, there are some doctrines that are non-originalist but favor libertarians (substantive due process and the dormant commerce clause, to name two), but in my view individual freedom would see a great net gain should we strictly interpret the Constitution via Thomas' (and NOT Scalia's) brand of originalism.

 

[cekim]

Scalia is a fudd and has put out some pretty logically twisted opinions that don't pass muster for originalist, textualist or libertarian. Just POOA.

Gotta go with Thomas as well - zero F's given and calls it straight.

 

[rwl1955]

WTF? I guess I won't be buying a new GEN 4 in this shithole of a State.

 

[rep308]

WTF? I guess I won't be buying a new GEN 4 in this shithole of a State.

I have 3 gen 4s, you just have to look around and pay more

 

[terraformer]

Even if you can get a judge that will recognize gun rights, they can be terrible on other things that matter just as much (Scalia, for example). There are very few clear thinking libertarians in positions of power. Justice Kennedy is close, and about the only example I can think of right now apart from maybe 75% of Rand Paul.

I disagree with such a kind assessment of Justice Kennedy--even if he's a "clear thinking libertarian", he too often votes in whichever manner he perceives will cause history to think favorably of him.

My vote in that regard is Justice Thomas. He's a libertarian by-proxy, the proxy being an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. True, there are some doctrines that are non-originalist but favor libertarians (substantive due process and the dormant commerce clause, to name two), but in my view individual freedom would see a great net gain should we strictly interpret the Constitution via Thomas' (and NOT Scalia's) brand of originalism.

No one is going to be 100% of anything. Litmus tests can rat hole real quick. I am pretty sure Ayn Rand wouldn't be the perfect libertarian either if you allowed the test to run long enough. I am also pretty sure that she is not someone I would want to do much of anything with her personally (she was notorious for being moody and that has a huge "irrational" component to it).

She abhorred altruism, *both* personal and political, (IMHO abhorring the former is rather extreme) instead preferring people act always in their naked self interest. This is fine when discussing the benefits/cost of public v. private charities and relying on people to donate to private charities for the purpose of being seen in a positive light. But that relies on the donor having an audience that appreciates charity and I dare say believes it morally beneficial and altruistic, otherwise why would they not see it completely for the naked self promotion that it was? It's one thing to want to approach government from this perspective, but it's another thing altogether to approach non government interaction, whether a person's standing in the community or friends and family in this manner. For an example, say one has a child. If it's not in one's self-interest that day to feed the kid, is that OK? The answer to this is inherently moral in nature. Morality being the core of altruism...

Anyhow, at some point it makes sense that something should be called a spade, even if there is a bit of shovel in it.

 

[Whutmeworry]

There is no next. We aren't going to let this stand.

Donation sent. TAKE THE HILL!!!

 

[Whutmeworry]

From the court's dismissal: "Here, defendant has offered several examples of firearms where it is clear that they would fail to meet the regulation’s standards. See, e.g., Smith ex rel. Smith v. Bryco Arms, 33 P.3d 638, 641 (N.M. App. 2001) ("the J-22 handgun does not incorporate a ‘magazine-out safety,’ a ‘chamber load indicator,’ or a written warning on the gun itself alerting users that the J-22 can fire even though the magazine has been removed"); Pitonyak v. State, 253 S.W.3d 834, 845 (Tex. App. 2008) ("the pistol in question did not have a safety or a loading indicator to show that a bullet is in the firing chamber").
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ facial challenge to the regulation will be dismissed."


But.................THE GLOCKS IN QUESTION HAVE A LOADED CHAMBER INDICATOR!!!!

 

[soam]

So, does the appeal go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, or is there another step before that?

 

[terraformer]

So, does the appeal go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, or is there another step before that?

It's the first circuit.

 

[mbullism]

It's fascinating how the AG can argue that two things which are constructively the same are different (LCI's, because they/she says so) while simultaneously arguing that two things which are different are constructively the same (same sex marriage on its way to SCOTUS...)

...fascinating.

Given that patchwork of regulations, Healey said only the Supreme Court can settle the issue for the nation by ruling that bans on gay marriage anywhere in the country are unconstitutional.

She said those bans in other states hurt legally married gay couples in Massachusetts, particularly when they travel outside of their home state.

Why does this only apply to her personal agenda? How come a patchwork of firearms regulations both in state and out can't hurt legal owners in MA? ...I know, I know... "gun"

 

[Cero]

I disagree with such a kind assessment of Justice Kennedy--even if he's a "clear thinking libertarian", he too often votes in whichever manner he perceives will cause history to think favorably of him.

My vote in that regard is Justice Thomas. He's a libertarian by-proxy, the proxy being an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. True, there are some doctrines that are non-originalist but favor libertarians (substantive due process and the dormant commerce clause, to name two), but in my view individual freedom would see a great net gain should we strictly interpret the Constitution via Thomas' (and NOT Scalia's) brand of originalism.

Scalia is a fudd and has put out some pretty logically twisted opinions that don't pass muster for originalist, textualist or libertarian. Just POOA.

Gotta go with Thomas as well - zero F's given and calls it straight.

What cases are you referring to? Off the top of my head there was the case of the traffic stop where the cops found a bunch of weed (found it Navarette v. California). Thomas found that the search was all well and good. Scalia ripped into that because it was limiting on freedom.

 

[JJ4]

My interpretation is the court says "you can't be confused because there is a letter saying they don't comply, and you don't get to ask why - "because I said so" is good enough"

Also "to hell with firearms in common use as long as you can buy a single legal firearm you have your full 2A rights".


To play devil's advocate: we can't really argue about confusion as to weather or not the particular model in question is compliant when we present evidence that we were all told they do not comply. We must instead assert that we have a right to know the precise standards of compliance. These two issues cannot be intertwined otherwise the result is what just happened. (This is not intended to be a criticism, but an observation).

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[oppressed]

.