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

As a group they are clueless. Individually they are talk about protecting the boarders, enforcing laws on the books, then they want to add race, sex and other 'vulnerabilities' to gun violence as reason to lock down gun shops.

See that there lump of steel? Yup, it's racist. Don't for the life of you go near it![puke2]

Matt
Sell some coffee too, as every dunkin near me is open.
 
Maybe gun shops could put a little snack tray in the corner, or sell a few rolls of TP. That way they could remain open as an essential business. [smile]
evidently one of the ways restaurants were allowed to stay open in some of the local counties here in TX was to sell "groceries" as well as take out food. We went to the local smokehouse a few weeks back and they had large cans of beans and rolls of TP, even some fresh vegetables (onions and such) and limes for sale.
 
Plaintiffs' reply brief filed yesterday. Hearing on Monday.

Walmart Doesn’t Save the Day, and Neither do Private Sales
Defendants’ evidence regarding the availability of ammunition at Walmart—an affiant’s testimony that she placed calls and asked questions, offered to show the truth of the answers she received—is inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802.And even were this disregarded, it omits an important detail—that Walmart does not sell handgun ammunition.1Indeed, as shown in the declarations submitted herewith, the Plaintiffs and others visited 10 of the11 Walmarts that the Defendants cite in their brief—and were unable to find handgun ammunition at any of them. Moreover, as Massad Ayoob—a nationally renowned expert on armed self-defense—explains in his declaration, even if someone could find handgun ammunition in a Walmart, that ammunition would likely be unsuitable for self-defense.

A big, big, big THANK YOU to the many people who answered the fire mission call and made this reply possible.
 
"If COVID-19 is too dangerous to let constitutionally
protected forms of commerce continue their operations, then it is definitely too dangerous to
allow things like pet supply stores, liquor stores, and car dealerships—which enjoy no

constitutional protection whatsoever—to continue."

BOOM - nailed it!

Mic drop...
 
Last edited:
I just wish healey et al would admit that their goal is to is to bankrupt independent LGS. Think about it, from a tyrants perspective. It is far easier to deal with Cabelas and Walmart than perhaps dozens of independent shops not under the thumb of corporate board of directors.
Anybody notice that Bass Pro Shops did not have their annual spring shooting sale blowout? You could get some really good deals in the past. Wondering if they’ve A) sold out or B) were strong-armed by somebody. Plus I was wondering if it was only canceled in Mass...
 
It's 16 files but here is the meat of it, the reply brief.
Thank you for posting the reply brief.
If I had to pick one sentence from the brief this would be it:
"And just as it is improper for the State of Texas to use COVID-19 to justify laying restrictions on a constitutional right that some of its political leaders disfavor (abortion), it is likewise improper for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to use COVID-19 to do the same thing here."
 
Anybody notice that Bass Pro Shops did not have their annual spring shooting sale blowout? You could get some really good deals in the past. Wondering if they’ve A) sold out or B) were strong-armed by somebody. Plus I was wondering if it was only canceled in Mass...
Targetsports cancelled their monthly sales as well. Im the first to reach for the tinfoil but I think everyones just overwhelmed and it doesnt really make any sense for things to go on sale with demand the way it is.
 
Targetsports cancelled their monthly sales as well. Im the first to reach for the tinfoil but I think everyones just overwhelmed and it doesnt really make any sense for things to go on sale with demand the way it is.
A not to be named reloading supplier was very forthcoming stating that the current and anticipated demand situation means they do not expect to be offering their oft repeated "free hazmat" deal any time soon. I am impressed by their forthright honesty rather than fabricating some reason other than "the demand curve has moved".
 
"If COVID-19 is too dangerous to let constitutionally
protected forms of commerce continue their operations, then it is definitely too dangerous to
allow things like pet supply stores, liquor stores, and car dealerships—which enjoy no

constitutional protection whatsoever—to continue."

BOOM - nailed it!

Mic drop...
tenor (12).gif
 
Thank you for posting the reply brief.
If I had to pick one sentence from the brief this would be it:
"And just as it is improper for the State of Texas to use COVID-19 to justify laying restrictions on a constitutional right that some of its political leaders disfavor (abortion), it is likewise improper for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to use COVID-19 to do the same thing here."
Yes, that was good. The political and legal parallels between abortion and gun rights are striking. You can almost literally do a cut-and-replace with the anti playbooks for both topics.
 
Anybody notice that Bass Pro Shops did not have their annual spring shooting sale blowout? You could get some really good deals in the past. Wondering if they’ve A) sold out or B) were strong-armed by somebody. Plus I was wondering if it was only canceled in Mass...


This is why it is critical to give these businesses a shit ton of business when we win this lawsuit.
 
A big, big, big THANK YOU to the many people who answered the fire mission call and made this reply possible.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to help a worthy cause. It’s probably the most productive thing I’ve done in six weeks and is definitely the most valuable Walmart purchase I’ve ever made.
 
I’m grateful for the opportunity to help a worthy cause. It’s probably the most productive thing I’ve done in six weeks and is definitely the most valuable Walmart purchase I’ve ever made.

Agreed about the value of a Walmart purchase. Just wish I could have gotten something centerfire.
 
I post this a bit earlier in the Comm2A fire mission thread:

Gov. Charlie Baker cited an 118-year-old court ruling during a yellow fever outbreak as part of his rejection for the re-opening of gun retailers in Massachusetts amid the coronavirus pandemic, among other reasons in a response to gun shops and customers in a federal lawsuit.
Gun shop owners, customers and firearms groups are suing Massachusetts over the closure of firearms retailers considered “non-essential” amid statewide closures through May 18.
Baker, in a response written by an assistant attorney general Tuesday, cites health and social distancing concerns to keep gun shops closed, and points to a 1902 Supreme Court decision against a company whose ship wasn’t allowed to dock in Louisiana.
A board of health quarantined the ship whose passengers sailed from a country that was a source of yellow fever outbreaks in Louisiana, and the Supreme Court denied the ship company’s allegation of violation of “due process,” protecting government powers.





“Compagnie Francaise makes clear that the Due Process Clause does not require government officials to take such time-consuming steps before acting on an emergency basis to stem a public health crisis (yellow fever),” attorney Julia Kobick wrote, referring to the name of the company.
Baker also pointed to ammunition sales still available at Walmarts across the state and the lack of a ban on private gun sales against gun retailers whose stores are usually too cramped to allow social distancing, court filings said.
Hampden Police Chief Jeff Farnsworth, who submitted an affidavit as president of Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, also dismissed plaintiffs’ allegations of rising crime and the need for gun purchases by law enforcement. Farnsworth wrote local departments usually purchase firearms directly from distributors, who remain open.
“There has not been a surge in crime, including violent crime, since the Covid-19 epidemic first came to public attention,” Farnsworth wrote. “If anything, crime in Massachusetts has decreased.”
An attorney for plaintiffs in the case did not respond to a request for comment.

Kobick, writing for Baker, emphasized the gun retailer closures were temporary.
“Closure of some of these institutions, like bookstores and schools, may implicate constitutional rights,” Kobick wrote, “but the health and welfare of the Massachusetts citizenry depend on these temporary closures.”


Quote Reply
Report Edit Delete

  • Like
Reactions: Boris
 
Update, they filed. Here it is.

Edit: "They" is only Terry M. Basically just says "I was responsible for posting things, and I was given the original version, then shortly given a corrected version, which corrected a mistake made by a staffer".

I believe Baker and other defendants are still required to submit their own affidavits?
 

Attachments

  • State Response.pdf
    1 MB · Views: 7
Tldr version: copy/paste error

The order says "parties" must submit. Does that simply mean someone from the defense? I sure hope the judge holds them to the coals on this one. Seems like they are using the "less is more" strategy, but that judges order had the distinct "tell me WTF is going on here" feeling.
 
Update, they filed. Here it is.

Edit: "They" is only Terry M. Basically just says "I was responsible for posting things, and I was given the original version, then shortly given a corrected version, which corrected a mistake made by a staffer".

I believe Baker and other defendants are still required to submit their own affidavits?
Blame it on a staffer. I cannot reasonably be a copy/paste staff error, but let's all give affidavits saying it is so.
 
Blame it on a staffer. I cannot reasonably be a copy/paste staff error, but let's all give affidavits saying it is so.
Especially when you combine truncation of a sentence with removal of the one relevant word from the middle of the sentence. Attributing that to a past-o would require considerable analytical strain.
 
And now, they are butt hurt about the fire mission and no longer want the whole thing to be decided on merit. They want the ability to cross examine evidence as needed.

Apologies if I am stepping on any toes posting the filings like this as they roll in on PACER and giving my uninformed commentary. If it in any way harms the case or something please let me know. I'm quarantined and bored, very much enjoying the prospect of seeing the judicial branch actually prove useful and smack down this tyranny.

REVISED POSITION OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS: Although the defendants represented on April 27th that they would not object to consolidation of the preliminary injunction hearing with trial on the merits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), provided that no witnesses are called to testify, the defendants now object to consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) in light of the extensive new evidence attached the McCarthy plaintiffs’ reply brief, filed just one business day before the hearing. The McCarthy plaintiffs have introduced 14 new declarations, mostly from non-parties, including a declaration that attempts to provide material that would be appropriate only for an expert report [Doc. 65-12 — Declaration of Massad Ayoob] by attaching these declarations to their Reply. The defendants contest some of the statements included in this new evidence and will not have an opportunity to cross-examine. Accordingly, the defendants would be prejudiced if this case were to proceed, by consolidation, to trial on the merits at this time.
 

Attachments

  • Advancing Trial On Merits.pdf
    88.8 KB · Views: 3
And now, they are butt hurt about the fire mission and no longer want the whole thing to be decided on merit. They want the ability to cross examine evidence as needed.

Apologies if I am stepping on any toes posting the filings like this as they roll in on PACER and giving my uninformed commentary. If it in any way harms the case or something please let me know. I'm quarantined and bored, very much enjoying the prospect of seeing the judicial branch actually prove useful and smack down this tyranny.
To summarize:
  • We were ok with consolidation when it was based solely on the original complaints
  • We made some outrageous claims in our response to the complaints that would have allowed a judge to rule in our favor
  • You had the audacity to refute our claims with actual facts and affidavits.
  • We will take this opportunity of your "introduction of new evidence" to derail/delay the whole thing thereby meeting our initial objectives
  • HAHA, you fell into our trap
  • Sincerely, statist a*holes
 
A generally content-free answer void of anything that discloses who ordered the changes or how they came to be.

Q: Why was the notice changed?
A: Because a new version of the file was uploaded to the web server.


By copy/paste error I mean: "A staffer copy/pasted from the federal guidelines. This was in error... "
 
“There has not been a surge in crime, including violent crime, since the Covid-19 epidemic first came to public attention,” Farnsworth wrote. “If anything, crime in Massachusetts has decreased.”
I would ask if crime has decreased or if enforcement has decreased, giving the perception that crime is down.
 
Back
Top Bottom