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.
Absolutely true. And this ruling is an "enabler" for her or her successors to do exactly that.So basically, one day the AG could declare all loaded chamber indicators to be non-compliant with the requirements of 940 CMR 16.05(3), effectively shutting off all dealer sales of new handguns in this state, and there's not a damned thing we could do about it.
Yes, but they all belong to that same "fraternity" of lawyers/politicians/judges and protect their own.Alex, unless I missed the post, I don't think that anyone places any blame on you. The AG's actions are clearly a sample of a tyrannical, out of control, government agency backed up by the Court. None of this makes sense to rational people, which confirms that you (we) were never allowed to play on a level field. The fact that the Court didn't allow expert testimony speaks volumes about this charade.
The AG is nothing more than another useless political HACK, just like her predecessors!
True. And ironically the Heller/McDonald decisions would allow for that because they merely addressed the keeping of a handgun in your home, not handgun sales of any kind.So basically, one day the AG could declare all loaded chamber indicators to be non-compliant with the requirements of 940 CMR 16.05(3), effectively shutting off all dealer sales of new handguns in this state, and there's not a damned thing we could do about it.
There are still surprises.
Lawsuits have to be brought strategically. Bringing bad lawsuits will result in bad precedents being set, and will set us back, rather than move us forward.How much does it cost to file a lawsuit against the AG? What if we got hundreds of us to serve her with lawsuits and overwhelm the system?
So, they looked at some photographs and determined that, from a static perspective view, they could under certain circumstances determine the state of the LCI. We don't know the quality of these photographs (e.g. were they black and white from a copy machine?). In addition, the LCI is a three dimensional object and is only intended to be used from a dynamic frame of reference when used as a visual indicator. [Note: I'm a researcher in computer vision/machine vision]. The geometry of a 3D object observed from a static 2D perspective projection under static lighting conditions is notoriously hard to determine. Take for example the "face on mars" or many other optical illusions (e.g. see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb_X91HU-Pw and note that the camera, the room, an the lighting are all static even though people move). To discern the geometry of a 3D object, you need multiple viewpoints. The best book in computer vision is called (Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision by Hartley and Zisserman). Multiple viewpoints can occur through multiple cameras (or multiple eyes), moving the object in 3D, moving the viewpoint in 3D, or moving the lighting in 3D. Note that a static photograph does not allow any of these to happen. When humans observe 3D scenes (essentially what our brains have been trained to do for our entire life), we use our two eyes to sense depth, and even small head movements can give us several quick viewpoints of a 3D object to identify its state. In addition, we can manipulate the object to see it from different viewpoints.The record contains photographs of their loadindicators in both the "loaded" and "unloaded" positions, and thedifferences, far from being "plain," are discernable only to thecareful and discriminating eye.
The appeals court uses an example that disproves their point. They give an example of a labeling requirements for poisonous substances, and their example details precisely how to comply with the regulation. You must have the name of the substance, and you must use the word Poison. That is enough information to know how to comply with the regulation, whereas the LCI regulation provides absolutely zero information. From their poison labeling information, a person of reasonable intelligence can infer design requirements. The word poison is spelled using the latin aphabet with letters P, O, I, S, O, N. It must be displayed in writing or typeface that most people can read - e.g. using an olde-english elvish script from Lord of the Rings probably would not comply, but using a font that is used in official government documents, official government signs, newspapers in wide circulation, or commonly used in product labels would all clearly comply. Using font sizes that are typically found on product labels would comply. If needed, a statistical analysis of fonts and font sizes could be done. The font size would need to be one that most of the population can read between 1 feet and 3 feet away - this information can be gathered by various means. The contrast requirements of the text can be similarly inferred (e.g. don't use white text on a white background, don't use colors that make it difficult for someone with colorblindness to read, etc.).Perhaps it is a sense of the weakness of their positionthat leads the dealers to argue, in effect, that fair noticerequires the Commonwealth to provide something approaching adesign specification: if the Commonwealth wishes to require loadindicators that "indicate plainly," the Commonwealth ought tosupply the industry with a graphic plan or blueprint. But if dueprocess demanded any such how-to guide, swaths of the United StatesCode, to say nothing of state statute books, would be vulnerable.See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 209 ("[T]he box, bottle, or other packageshall be plainly labeled with the name of the substance [and] theword 'Poison' . . . ."
THISx10^6These are judges. It's not supposed to matter. They are supposed to put that crap aside.
Anyhow, for all you Trump supporters or haters, realize that these were two BO appointed judges and former SCOTUS Justice David Souter (who is retired during BO's first term giving him an extra SCOTUS appointment, i.e.; a traitor to conservative causes). Elections matter. If Billary wins this election, it will be a generation or longer for the courts to come back around.
You only need to look at how the judge at the first level handled it to get an idea of the leanings of the court.I know that was long, but I completely reject the idea that the appeals court looked at static photographs to decide that they agree with the AG.
If that's on written record, I'd think it would be grounds for a mistrial.You only need to look at how the judge at the first level handled it to get an idea of the leanings of the court.
Before either side pleaded, the judge started with something pretty close to "I am inclined to accept all claims by the AG and none of the claims by the plaintiff, but I am prepared to hear testimony". Basically the equivalent of "we'll have a trial before the hanging".
I don't see how it could be. That happened at the district level. The case has already been appealed and we lost the appeal. I believe the only alternatives are to appeal en banc or to SCOTUS.is this in play? or can this at least be used in an appeal at a level higher? I find it hard to believe that with such a "plainly indicated" bias of this court that this is the end
Was the statement of bias made during the appeal or in the original hearing?I don't see how it could be. That happened at the district level. The case has already been appealed and we lost the appeal. I believe the only alternatives are to appeal en banc or to SCOTUS.
IACNAL, but if Comm2A thinks it's not worth it, then I support that also. They're the ones with the brains on how this stuff works. I'm just a little hard-headed when it comes to throwing in the cards until I've done everything I possibly could before dropping something that seems worthwhile.Is it worth spending that money on a case they will lose, or better to put that money to a different case?