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

zboys said:
No, this is taken directly from their proposal,
"Gun stores can open by appointment only, no more than four transactions per hour, no extended hours beyond what they were open for before".
Click to expand...
ALEXalex322: I would love it if the judge would ask them as to why they haven’t applied these same guidelines to other businesses.

On this and the 'Gun Ranges and Clubs can operated at 40%' (Paraphrased), I would simply ask what assessments of the counter space, room size (Sq-Ft), existing spacing of shooting stations, etc was performed to ensure that your recommendations satisfied the social distancing recommendations that underlie the reason for any limitations ?

Which stores, ranges, clubs etc were participating and provided data to your assessments that led to these sections of your proposed rule ?

Upon finding that no store, range, club participated or provided data, and that in truth there were no actual assessments - the judge should decide these values and provisions of their proposed rule are arbitrary and even capricious. Have no basis in fact and result in the sincerity of entirety of the proposal to be suspect. This line of questions would be entirely parallel to the series of questions on justifications and rationale behind the original closure order.
 
oldguy68 said:
Going against our AG or Governor Baker will never happen.
They may loosen the restrictions a bit because the corona restrictions are being lessened.
But don't think this is because the courts rule that it was unjust in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're missing one detail - this is federal court, not state.

For example the AG would never dare go after the state police for theft or a sitting senate president for corruption, but to a fed that sort of thing spells career opportunity, not doom.

The judge is not an idiot. Whatever ruling he issues will be with a full understanding of the facts, not because he was fooled by AGs counsel.
 
Liveblog 2.0 starts now...

10:05am: Judge is referencing email from Brian Miranda that was entered into the record, emphasizing it shouldn't have been sent and will have no impact on his ruling, but he entered it in because the parties are entitled to know what he's exposed to
10:07am: Judge says Plaintiff's proposed form of order is too open-ended for a TRO/preliminary injunction
10:11am: Focus in first hearing was on justification for governor's order, the response he got from gov's office provided his public statements but response doesn't provide support/reasoning for governor's view, judge is left with "unhappy experience of trying to tease out" a justification.
10:13am: Turning to state's proposed form of order... judge wants to know if plaintiffs have objections to proposed form of order
10:16am: Judge is asking if plaintiffs object to hygiene and scheduling requirements. Comm2a lawyer is saying no... I'm worried he's missing what the judge means by "scheduling". Stores shouldn't have their hands tied with regards to scheduling.
10:20am: I'm worried this isn't going well so far. Why isn't the Comm2a lawyer objecting to the appointment-only and 4 transactions per hour requirements?
10:25am: State's lawyer is a clown. Keeps spouting off on a hundred different things rather than answering the judge's question. He keeps trying to bring her back and she keeps going off. Started talking about MGL 93A.
10:30am: False alarm. Judge was focused on the 10 hygiene related requirements. He's now narrowing in on the four appointments per hour requirement.
10:35am: Comm2a lawyer is objecting to the four appointments per hour requirement. There are large retailers that shouldn't be limited like this, also an ammo transaction might only take 1-2 minutes.
10:40am: Judge seems to be inclined to allow four transactions per hour. Plaintiffs should be objecting more strongly to the impact of this limit, particularly as it applies to ammo.
10:43am: On to operating hours... Judge is inclined to enter an order that says stores can be open 9am-9pm daily.
10:47am: Judge is worried that there's not enough on the record to act on shooting ranges with enough specificity in the order :(
10:50am: Parties will be required to make additional filings in regarding shooting ranges to build the record so he can act. Likely to be a week before we get an order. He seems firm on this. TRO/injunction will only apply to shops.
10:51am: Judge doesn't like the idea of two business days for order to take effect. Sounds inclined to get them open before the weekend.
10:55am: Judges doesn't like state's position... "Essential Services" is not the language of constitutional rights. Grilling the state.
10:56am: Judge does not like state's position on 2A in general... taking shots about Caetano, and the fact that the SJC took years to rule after SCOTUS delivered their decision to overturn the stun gun ban.
[Had to step away from 11:00-11:10, not sure what I missed]
11:17am: Judge is comparing preventing newspapers from buying paper, how is that any different than 2A? State: intermediate scrutiny. Judge: Not talking scrutiny. Why do you need this restriction?
11:20am: Judge: "how much burden can we put on constitutional rights, recognizing that they may not be popular among some segments of the public, but htey are constitutional."
11:26am: State is pontificating on the commie cold. Nothing new here.
11:30am: Judge says he's going to enter an order. Because I missed 10 minutes, I'm not sure if the four transactions per hour requirement was addressed. If not, this is a huge lost opportunity. Should be four guns per clerk per hour with fewer or no restrictions on ammo transactions.
11:35am: Judge referenced the four transactions per hour requirement in his closing. Sounds like it's in. The plaintiffs should have pushed much harder on this.
11:46am: Judge still going... just properly articulating his reasoning. Nothing new to note.
11:54am: State is moving to stay the order. Judge says no. He is going to write up memorandum and doesn't want precipitous appeal without a record. Not clear what that means, it seems like he should have said it's too early for a stay and to request it in writing once the order is entered. I think he may have left the door open to an immediate appeal.
11:56am: Apparently I missed this part, but shops open at noon on Saturday
12:00pm: Talking about procedural matters and next steps
12:03pm: That's a wrap.
 
Last edited:
Well, golf is officially now open in the state as of a short time ago.

It's going to be very difficult for them to argue an outdoor range can't open.
 
I missed the federal court bit.
Then our state will just give them the finger and say "Not in our state you won't!".
Kind of like how pot is legal here. But illegal federally...
You don't see the DEA stomping that crap out!

Where is the IRS going after the pot shops here in MA?
Or the drug dealers...

Try to say you legally smoke pot here in MA on your form 4473!

So we may get a win Federally, but still it means jack here in MA!

Oh, and I don't think judges are fools. I just think they are all influenced by politics!
There are no impartial judges. They do what it takes to keep their jobs!
They don't rock the boat.
If so, ask what "shall not be infringed" means to them?
 
Last edited:
ddraper said:
1)Ensuring that all employees and customers cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face covering;

This is going to be extremely difficult to enforce on an outdoor range with no direct supervision.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, why do you need a mask outdoors?? If you're NOT not-social-distant, you don't need a mask out-of-doors.

Drix said:
Sure there is! Liquor lobby is stronger in MA than the gun lobby!
Click to expand...

Lots more revenue in liquor than guns. States make out like bandits. Don't believe the riot/DT argument at all. It's about revenue. Pure and simple.
 
Why are we not noting the scheduling issues here? I must be missing something, the judge is clearly leading plaintiffs to suggest scheduling is an issue?

I hate to say it, but I feel like we had a layup here, and we aren't hitting the shot. Scheduling and 40% capacity are two huge issues in the order.
 
Boston4567 said:
10:16am: Judge is asking if plaintiffs object to hygiene and scheduling requirements. Comm2a lawyer is saying no... I'm worried he's missing what the judge means by "scheduling". Stores shouldn't have their hands tied with regards to scheduling.
Click to expand...

Maybe not enough coffee in my system- What other definition of "scheduling" could the plaintiffs be thinking he means? It sounds like they're finding the state's accommodations to be perfectly acceptable- which they're not.
 
Is she trying to say that the virus takes 30 minutes to transmit to someone else and that it can’t be done in a few second at a liquor store?
so 100 people in a grocery store for an hour is better than someone standing outside while the an FFL calls in their background check?
 
mlaboss said:
Use the "Request for Courtroom..." link to request the zoom info. The confirmation e-mail says "NOTE: The access information above is not to be forwarded or distributed out to any other parties. ", so nobody should post it here.
Click to expand...
Is that for the link so sign in? I thought that meant for the specific dial in that is granted per each request
 

Similar threads

ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
484
pastera
pastera
File under: Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime…
Replies
2
Views
279
ridleyman
R
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
149
oldguy68
oldguy68
#1 darknet drug market admin blackmailing all its users
Replies
19
Views
578
BoKnowsJack
B
Auto service shop - clues
Replies
11
Views
484
zboys
zboys
Back
Top Bottom