• 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.

Comm2A, SAF, GOAL and FPC file against Baker admin on shop closures

Boston4567 said:
I don't think a reasonable enough attempt was made to push back on it. Arguments have been made here that any further attempt to push would have done more harm than good, but I don't buy it. I think it would have been useful to push back to at least get the judge thinking about it.

I will admit, the court didn't have a properly developed record upon which to base a ruling to allow some stores to have more appointments per hour on the basis of square footage or any other fact-dependent metric. The judge probably would have needed floorplans and/or staffing of various shops on the record, for example, in order to avoid risking getting his ruling stayed. Getting those on the record would have taken additional time, and he wanted to rule immediately. Emergencies include emergency efforts to protect constitutional rights, after all.

So it's not likely he would have wavered from the limited appointments per hour on guns at the preliminary injunction stage. But maybe they could have gotten to five appointments per hour, which would be a 25% increase in throughput and could make a big difference to getting more gun shops "in the black". That could have been justified on the basis of the record, where I believe both sides agreed it takes about 10-15 minutes per appt (10 minutes per appt = 6 appts per hour, so 5/hour is conservative). And he could have made ammo a separate category of appointment, or allowed curbside pickup for ammo.

All that said, there's room for this stuff to be expanded upon later, as long as the argument gets made.
Click to expand...
It should not be related to "appointments/hr" period! It should be like other places, % of occupancy limits that were established for the building/office. Like the supermarkets with the line . . . one exits, one enters. For example: I'm thinking of putting a gun on consignment, but I'm not about to use one of his 4/hr slots to do so as I'm not going there to buy anything.
 
Len-2A Training said:
It should not be related to "appointments/hr" period! It should be like other places, % of occupancy limits that were established for the building/office. Like the supermarkets with the line . . . one exits, one enters. For example: I'm thinking of putting a gun on consignment, but I'm not about to use one of his 4/hr slots to do so as I'm not going there to buy anything.
Click to expand...
That would seem to be something that a shop could arrange for pickup, no?
 
Len-2A Training said:
It should not be related to "appointments/hr" period! It should be like other places, % of occupancy limits that were established for the building/office. Like the supermarkets with the line . . . one exits, one enters. For example: I'm thinking of putting a gun on consignment, but I'm not about to use one of his 4/hr slots to do so as I'm not going there to buy anything.
Click to expand...
Obviously I agree with you; I'm just explaining what I believe to be the judge's reasoning. He was focused on making a preliminary injunction ruling that would quickly open shops up but would be also "durable" to immediate review from a hostile appellate panel. I didn't understand it at first, but in hindsight it makes sense.

The injunction is narrow enough to withstand appeal and maybe even to prevent Maura from bothering to appeal. My bet is that as the litigation progresses there will be plenty of room to modify it and open things up further. You know what they say, better to turn up the temperature slowly...
 
Len-2A Training said:
It should not be related to "appointments/hr" period! It should be like other places, % of occupancy limits that were established for the building/office. Like the supermarkets with the line . . . one exits, one enters. For example: I'm thinking of putting a gun on consignment, but I'm not about to use one of his 4/hr slots to do so as I'm not going there to buy anything.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe the judge is just a little smarter than you. I know, that cannot be! "Do you know who I am?"
 
Boston4567 said:
Obviously I agree with you; I'm just explaining what I believe to be the judge's reasoning. He was focused on making a preliminary injunction ruling that would quickly open shops up but would be also "durable" to immediate review from a hostile appellate panel. I didn't understand it at first, but in hindsight it makes sense.

The injunction is narrow enough to withstand appeal and maybe even to prevent Maura from bothering to appeal. My bet is that as the litigation progresses there will be plenty of room to modify it and open things up further. You know what they say, better to turn up the temperature slowly...
Click to expand...


This is the view that I am taking. Clearly, the Commonwealth was contemplating an appeal anyway and I think he simply wanted to leave them with a crap sandwich of a case that was not likely to be reversed.
 
Is there any other business allowed only so many people to make a purchase by numbers of transactions a day ? Any ? And what does these numbers have to correlate to safety that can’t be done in a less restrictive way ? Lawsuit !
 
71montess said:
Is there any other business allowed only so many people to make a purchase by numbers of transactions a day ? Any ? And what does these numbers have to correlate to safety that can’t be done in a less restrictive way ? Lawsuit !
Click to expand...
This was a TEMPORARY restraining order.

Trial on the merits to follow unless a lifting of restrictions moots the case.
 
Len-2A Training said:
It should not be related to "appointments/hr" period! It should be like other places, % of occupancy limits that were established for the building/office. Like the supermarkets with the line . . . one exits, one enters. For example: I'm thinking of putting a gun on consignment, but I'm not about to use one of his 4/hr slots to do so as I'm not going there to buy anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly, anything less is infringement, period.
 
A simple argument is "would the following stand?":

"We are in an emergency situation and must balance rights against public safety. Any speech or publication that is in conflict with government approved talking points is prohibited for the duration of the emergency, as such speech could lead to behavior that increases infection risk".

or, perhaps:

"Hotels have shut down. Members of the public shall be required to quarter members of the National Health Service who require lodging while on government travel".

If the answer is no, then the 2A is a right of the second class not equal to the others.
 
Last edited:
Alas, this is 2020. People don't see the 2 as they do the other 9. Somehow it's an anachronism. Hell, I'd say quartering troops seems like an anachronism.

I grew up in a "we don't need no guns" household. I can totally see how easy it is for Mom and Pop America to buy into it. It's force-fed to us on a regular basis.


I also get the 4/hr deal. Easier than having to police based on size-of-shop. Most places are small. Many are smaller-still due to gun racks, ammo, crap, old magazines, dusty mounts, etc., Trying to figure out if XYZ GunZZZ (add those last two Z's because you ain't ZZavin any money!) has the right # of people in it could be near impossible on the fly. 4/hr makes it simpler if Der Furermunstertroopen need to come to see if XYZ is doing it right or not. (Forget the legality in the first place - I'm talking of how to figure out the math only.)
 
Dennis in MA said:
I grew up in a "we don't need no guns" household. I can totally see how easy it is for Mom and Pop America to buy into it. It's force-fed to us on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

I did too. Was bullied pretty harshly through school, figured it was just the pos's from my town, and sure enough, my freshman year of college was a fantastic experience. One day I had a knock on my dorm door, opened it to greet whatever person from my suite was looking for me. Vaguely remember the door bouncing off my head, got pushed back into a desk, and something about two guys throwing punches and being choked to blackness.

It wasn't being beat nearly to death that snapped the "f*** this" light in my life- I think it's the response. I did what I was supposed to do, I didn't fight, I didn't own a gun, I trusted the police who weren't there when I needed them- nobody came for help with all the noise, and despite an investigation that found that the girl next door had called the two guys in to beat the shit out of the guy on the other side of the hall because he was harassing her there was never any resolution- No arrests, no court, barely a police report; that was when the "f*** this" light went off.

I barely escaped death once, Samuel Colt is my shepherd these days, and I place my full trust in 9x19. When cop cars start driving over 1500fps I'll reconsider my options.
 
I'm not saying I agree with it. I just can see where it came from.

On the flip side, if they said 25% or 40% or whatever the state guideline is for other essential businesses, someone here would say it's not a TRUE right until it's 100%. Which, I can ALSO see the logic in, but at some point, you become Lizzie Warren in a MAGA hat. It's OK to take a breath once in a while.

The reality is there isn't anything we can do about it right now. The good news is if people need a gun, they can get it. . . . . . . . well, outside of being able to get licensed in the first place but. . . . ;)
 
anyone have any info/facts on how Four Seasons fared Saturday? Number of customers? Sales? I don't need a 1911 but going to buy one now when the smoke clears. SA/RO full size is in my sights.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
This was a TEMPORARY restraining order.

Trial on the merits to follow unless a lifting of restrictions moots the case.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if the intent might be to lift the restrictions last minute to save face and avoid a bad ruling (For them).
Or take it to the bitter end.
This might not be all that great for us at the moment , but the PR of having their actions ruled unconstitutional is no great victory for them either.
 
Dadstoys said:
I was wondering if the intent might be to lift the restrictions last minute to save face and avoid a bad ruling (For them).
Or take it to the bitter end.
This might not be all that great for us at the moment , but the PR of having their actions ruled unconstitutional is no great victory for them either.
Click to expand...

They will fight it till the bitter end cuz guns.

Bob
 
HorizontalHunter said:
They will fight it till the bitter end cuz guns.

Bob
Click to expand...

That might be what screws them.
I think the Judge made it pretty clear what he thinks about violating constitutional rights.
She might take it all the way just on her blind hatred of anyone who differs from her world view of a disarmed and helpless population submitting to her will.
There might be a confab going on right now about how this might hamper future efforts to piss on our rights if they get bench slapped on this one.
 
Dadstoys said:
That might be what screws them.
I think the Judge made it pretty clear what he thinks about violating constitutional rights.
She might take it all the way just on her blind hatred of anyone who differs from her world view of a disarmed and helpless population submitting to her will.
There might be a confab going on right now about how this might hamper future efforts to piss on our rights if they get bench slapped on this one.
Click to expand...

Honestly it is more likely she knows something we don't. This case will take a long time to get to any sort of conclusion that would make them look bad or force them to do anything. If the state reopens next month, say end of the month. Then they will have shut down gun sales for a month, and forced a really crappy half assed reopen for two months, all the while knowing the case will disappear as moot as soon as they reopen the non essential businesses long before they lose.
 
I wonder if the AG, like certain other high officals, has an armed detail to accompany her 24x7. Despite the fact that I am in absolute disagreement with her position, I would at least have a bit of respect for her not being a member of the "guns for me but not for thee" crowd if she travels to her unguarded home without an armed escort.
soon as they reopen the non essential businesses long before they lose.
Click to expand...
Hmm.... the prospect of that occurring could influence which phase of a multi-step opening up of the MA economy will gun shops. It's certain that without some adverse consequences for "the system" that gun stores would be the very last thing allowed to open. Bookends - close them first, open them last.
 
Last edited:
NEVER EVER FORGET THIS!
WE ALLOW THEM TO, UNTIL THE DAY WHEN "WE" SAY NO MORE!

They just keep bringing that day closer and closer...
This virus will be the best thing for our freedom for future generations, if these politicians stay their course!
We have the numbers and the loathing of our rights and citizens being treated as a second class.

You fight best when you have purpose and will.
This virus is going to be a catalyst.
 
Last edited:
EJFudd said:
If true, someone really needs to change the title of this thread and change or delete the first post in this thread. [thinking] Very misleading! [hmmm]
Click to expand...

Did you read the complaint? The OP could be more clear but if you have followed the thread it is all in there.

👍This might help. Get to know and support the Plaintiffs:

MICHAEL MCCARTHY; WILLIAM R. BIEWENGA; LAURIE WARNER; TIMOTHY GALLIGAN; JIM SIMMONS; DAVID LANTAGNE; ALFRED MORIN; TROY CITY TACTICAL LLC; PRECISION POINT FIREARMS LLC; SHOOTING SUPPLY LLC; DOWNRANGE INC. d/b/a CAPE COD GUN WORKS; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.; COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC.; and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs,
-against-
CHARLES D. BAKER, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; MONICA BHAREL MD, MPH, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health; JAMISON GAGNON, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services; ALBERT F. DUPRE, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Fall River Police Department; ROBERT F. RUFO, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Woburn Police Department; KEITH A. PELLETIER, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Westport Police Department and MATTHEW SONNABEND, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Barnstable Police Department,

Defendants.
 

Similar threads

ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
483
pastera
pastera
File under: Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime…
Replies
2
Views
277
ridleyman
R
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
143
oldguy68
oldguy68
#1 darknet drug market admin blackmailing all its users
Replies
19
Views
576
BoKnowsJack
B
Auto service shop - clues
Replies
11
Views
484
zboys
zboys
Back
Top Bottom