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

Bladerunner

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
171
Likes
326
It's explicitly spelled out on the mass.gov webpage xero2099 linked to above.
Firearm retailers and shooting rangesPhase 1 – May 18

No additional comments.

I agree the case should continue because the phases can always be rolled back.
There WILL be rollbacks.

Social distancing policy is the perfect tool to eliminate Trump rallies from the political equation, which is why blue states will never relent.

Rollback openings and tighten up social distancing again right before back to school.
 

boscru

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
2,445
Likes
654
Location
brockton & fall river
So true.
All it take is a phone call from either Healy or Deleo.
Followed by , "Now go get your f*cking shine box Charlie. "

great movie line quote, and i like how you worked that in. haven't watched good fellas since deniro decided he wanted to punch trump.

only issue i'd take away from your post is i think deleo only does what governor healy says, same as chuck u baker
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,418
Likes
3,508
Location
Milky Way

Atlantis

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
442
Likes
661
He was asked about firearms/ranges by a reporter and he said “Federal order” like I think that’s all he said. Just those two words. So that’s restrictions remain for shops and wide open for shops?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,794
Likes
12,992
That doesn't matter though. Restrictions on gun shops are governed by the court now, not Baker.
The federal order sets a limit as to what Baker can impose, but he is still free to relax those that remain in place, so it is inaccurate to imply it is solely under federal control.
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
668
Likes
915
Location
Merrimack Valley
The federal order sets a limit as to what Baker can impose, but he is still free to relax those that remain in place, so it is inaccurate to imply it is solely under federal control.
Does it? My understanding is it's binding on all parties. There's no order from Baker right now that requires four appointments per hour, after all, but I assume shops couldn't open up without appointments without risking trouble.
 

Jason Flare

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
9,329
Likes
6,986
Location
Berkshires
Does it? My understanding is it's binding on all parties. There's no order from Baker right now that requires four appointments per hour, after all, but I assume shops couldn't open up without appointments without risking trouble.
I think it was a TRO. It restrained the governor from keeping the shops closed.

Now the governor has opened the shops and the TRO is moot.

ETA: In other words, without specific language in the order, when would the 4 appointments per hour no longer apply?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
668
Likes
915
Location
Merrimack Valley
I think it was a TRO. It restrained the governor from keeping the shops closed.

Now the governor has opened the shops and the TRO is moot.

ETA: In other words, without specific language in the order, when would the 4 appointments per hour no longer apply?
It's a preliminary injunction. I'm fairly sure it's binding on both parties. It's definitely questionable whether it's binding on other gun shops not party to the suit. I think only the court can modify the order, and until then it's in full effect. Hopefully someone here can shine more light on this.

Edit: At least one gun shop (not party to the lawsuit) is no longer requiring appointments, effective today. You may be right that the injunction was only binding on the state.
 
Last edited:

Yazz

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,173
Likes
3,936
Location
Eastern Ma.
He was asked about firearms/ranges by a reporter and he said “Federal order” like I think that’s all he said. Just those two words. So that’s restrictions remain for shops and wide open for shops?
Well there is a Federal Order against sanctuary cities as well Charlie.
 

headednorth

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
12,148
Likes
10,389
Good point, but that was almost 2 years ago. If Baker was a "real" Republican, the MA DEM swamp would have went after his son. Healey may be saving it when she runs for governor.
I think the kid is more valuable to them uncharged. Baker is easier to control with this hanging over his head. And you're right hes not really a Republican. If he was he never would've been elected in the first place
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
3,197
Likes
2,195
Location
Merrimack Valley
He was asked about firearms/ranges by a reporter and he said “Federal order” like I think that’s all he said. Just those two words. So that’s restrictions remain for shops and wide open for shops?

The distain to which Baker answered the gun range and shop question yesterday "Federal Order" should tell you all you need to know about his thoughts on firearms ownership and this particular civil right.

Its one of those quotes that should go down in a meme.
 

SFC13557

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
681
Likes
600
Location
Central Ma.
I don’t think it’s a hoax and the mask goes on before I enter and off as soon as I exit. The least amount of time I wear it the better. I maintain a distance from most people and touch as little as possible. Wearing a mask while driving seems odd and a bit overly cautious IMO. Which is fine, but not worth the hassle to me. Wearing a mask sucks. I'm also not making it a habit of entering stores back to back. Anyway..
Exactly! The mask is useless outdoors unless you're in someone's face. I drove to NH yesterday for a haircut, Gentlemen's Weekly in Milford. I needed a photo for my LTC renewal and didn't want to look like a homeless person. So Charley is restoring our civil rights in phases? What a guy.
 
Last edited:

Taipan01

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
516
Likes
125
Location
South Shore, MA
Exactly! The mask is useless outdoors unless you're in someone's face. I drove to NH yesterday for a haircut, Gentlemen's Weekly in Milford. I needed a photo for my LTC renewal and didn't want to look like a homeless person. So Charley is restoring our civil rights in phases? What a guy.
Would have been a shorter ride if Charley gave you access to his barber or any of the other overlords on the stage every night. None of them have the tumbleweed I'm sporting at the moment. I guess we are not impotent enough.
 

HorizontalHunter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
5,077
Likes
3,109
Location
Western Massachusetts
Would have been a shorter ride if Charley gave you access to his barber or any of the other overlords on the stage every night. None of them have the tumbleweed I'm sporting at the moment. I guess we are not impotent enough.
That was one of the first things that I though as well when I saw them all on stage.

Bob
 

Lank

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
4,443
Likes
1,209
Location
Run to the hills
Exactly! The mask is useless outdoors unless you're in someone's face. I drove to NH yesterday for a haircut, Gentlemen's Weekly in Milford. I needed a photo for my LTC renewal and didn't want to look like a homeless person. So Charley is restoring our civil rights in phases? What a guy.
I've been thinking about what exists between bakers ears. I then realized that he doesn't want to be impeached for respecting civil liberties
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
668
Likes
915
Location
Merrimack Valley
The Cedrone plaintiffs have moved to withdraw the injunction: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.220718/gov.uscourts.mad.220718.41.0.pdf

The state does not oppose: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.220718/gov.uscourts.mad.220718.42.0.pdf

I think the state took that as leave to not bother filing the response to the Cedrone plaintiffs' original motion that was ordered by the court. I don't know if that's kosher or not.

The McCarthy (Comm2a) plaintiffs have not weighed in.
 

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
54   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
13,737
Likes
4,195
Location
South Central Mass
Would have been a shorter ride if Charley gave you access to his barber or any of the other overlords on the stage every night.
Not to ruin a perfectly good bashing of Faker, but he participated in a charity hair cutting event right before this started where they shaved his head down to his scalp. He's basically just growing it back from scratch.

Let the bashing continue.
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
7,897
Likes
2,625
Location
south of Dedham
If someone stopped you from shooting at the range and buying a firearm to defend yourself with, I’d be amused it they put him is the stocks for a few days but haircut, no.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,671
Likes
2,106
The Cedrone plaintiffs have moved to withdraw the injunction: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.220718/gov.uscourts.mad.220718.41.0.pdf

The state does not oppose: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.220718/gov.uscourts.mad.220718.42.0.pdf

I think the state took that as leave to not bother filing the response to the Cedrone plaintiffs' original motion that was ordered by the court. I don't know if that's kosher or not.

The McCarthy (Comm2a) plaintiffs have not weighed in.
Do I understand correctly that a withdrawal of the injunction means that gun stores go back to "the rules for everyone" rather than being (more) limited by the terms of the injunction?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
668
Likes
915
Location
Merrimack Valley
So it’s moot ? People were not injured ? The courts have no obligation to make this not happen again ?
Not moot. One of the two plaintiffs requested the injunction for shooting ranges not be granted. Withdrawing the request for injunctive relief does not end the case.

No party (including the state) have moved to end the case for mootness.
Do I understand correctly that a withdrawal of the injunction means that gun stores go back to "the rules for everyone" rather than being (more) limited by the terms of the injunction?
Correct. But it also would also mean Baker could sign a new EO affecting shops and ranges without asking the court's permission first.

Edit: Distracted and had poor reading comprehension. They are only withdrawing the request for an injunction about ranges. The gun shop injunction stands.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom