- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
More obfuscation and hurdles put up by our legal system. Such a bullshit policy.
-
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
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
More obfuscation and hurdles put up by our legal system. Such a bullshit policy.
The request link which you posted can be shared. What can't be shared is the phone number and access code that you receive after you request the info.
It takes 20 second to fill out the form and the info comes back immediately.
Correct. This is not burdensome nor does it violate any rights we have to listen, or record the broadcast such as they may exist.
18 Ventura
NES Member
The suspense is killing me.... How are we doing???
Ugh, judge is saying his order isn't going to include shooting ranges because he doesn't have enough information.
Judge is working with the Commonwealth's proposed order.
10:47am: Judge is worried that there's not enough on the record to act on shooting ranges with enough specificity in the order
CCGW should be able to chime in on that- unlike most ranges that are an annual membership he can show clear hardships by loss of revenue, as can MFS.
Wonder how he's going to justify the constitutional right to keep arms, but not bear them.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 731
- Likes
- 1,201
Couture was a bumbling fool when asked. So why not have the ranges require social distancing policies? What's the difference with how it's laid out?
And if you have an annual membership to CCGW? Sorry kick rocks? I mean as the judge said, the PEOPLE are at the core of this. I support local business as much as the next, but this is an infringement against the people more than just a revenue hit.
I'd like to see some stronger pushback on the 4 per hour limit, especially regarding ammo sales.
???????.......this wasn’t about background checks it was about crime statistics.....
18 Ventura
NES Member
Ugh. Without the ranges being open... Much of this becomes a moot point...
Should be really embarrassing to the state when they get called out by a federal judge for not even pretending to consider the Consititution of the United States.
My club has perfectly reasonable procedures ready to go for social distancing (every other station closed etc) hasn't this judge seen all the pictures of folks at home depot and the like jammed together. Thanks to Boston4567's outstanding updates, I am not as optimistic as I was about overall store and range access as I was a few hours ago
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
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.
If this stands we will know that this judge is in the state's pocket.
If this stands we will know that this judge is in the state's pocket.
Lol, Attorney Jensen's kid is jumping in on the call.
I cringed when I heard them yell lol.
I appreciate the judge's understanding on that.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,310
- Likes
- 7,306
Pretty standard these days on all the zoom calls I've been on.
38ExtraSpecial
NES Member
Finally getting to the point. Why the hell do we have to adhere to restrictions that no one else does?
How do you propose to find standing?
This isn't a lawsuit from Joe Blow about not being able to fire his gun. There are specific plaintiffs that are suing over specific hardships and you have to work within those confines. I don't believe comm2a has made any mention of a plaintiff who's a new gun owner who hasn't been able to buy a gun and now is not a member of a club because they're a new owner and thus should have rights to a public range such as CCGW. CCGW however is a plaintiff with both a FFL and a range- they can claim a hardship.
Not getting my hopes up.
Judge trying to look tough, but most likely rule closer to states position.
Judge trying to look tough, but most likely rule closer to states position.
Fair point, that's where the laymen (myself) get lost sometimes. I look at this as a big picture case, but as you note, its all in the details and the specifics. You're right, an annual member has no standing in this case, at least in the sense that no one has been named and gone on record.
"There may be in the background a distaste, or at least a lack of enthusiasm for firearms[...] in Massachusetts"
"There may be in the background a distaste...or lack of enthusiasm for the firearms industry on the part of politicians."
YA THINK?!?
YA THINK?!?
Listening in... Disappointed that the counsel continues to fight points already won... (Level of Scrutiny, Open/Closed, etc)
and Not fighting for the conditions of how/when to be open:
Why are 'we' on defensive about arbitrariness of 4x Hr, Appointment Only ?
Why aren't we asking what analyses were conducted to arrive at these?
Why don't we assert that this amounts to prevention of access as appointments are filled thus denying others from their attempt to procure arms and/or ammunition / supplies ?
4 Appt or Trxn per Hr x 12 Hr/Day = 48 Appointments or Transactions: What about persons #49, 50, 51 ? Their 2A Rights are effectively Denied or Prohibited
Why aren't we pushing for'Fit" that includes and consider ability of different stores/ranges to have more than a single server/attendant performing transactions simultaneously ?
Why aren't we pushing that different stores have different number of workstations, different linear fit of counter space and general Sq-Ft of store that allow for different abilities to
provide for distancing ?
Why haven't we articulated the All / Nearly All shooting ranges include enumerated, separately identified shooting stations that are already 6-10 Ft apart and thus provide for distancing ?
And at least at Indoor ranges, barriers between stations ?
The Judge has provide a number of opportunities asking "Is there anything else that you would object to in ..."
Our side seems to be under prepared for answering / proposing these Hygienic conditions that acheive the goal with High Fit / Low Burdening of our Rights
Appreciated the Judges Points at 11:20 about scrutiny and potential for under-appreciating these 2A rights in MA and 'Slow walking' such things...
I think we could make more forceful and more detailed arguments to 'Fit' rather than arguing for Strict Scrutiny.
A missed Opportunity I think
and Not fighting for the conditions of how/when to be open:
Why are 'we' on defensive about arbitrariness of 4x Hr, Appointment Only ?
Why aren't we asking what analyses were conducted to arrive at these?
Why don't we assert that this amounts to prevention of access as appointments are filled thus denying others from their attempt to procure arms and/or ammunition / supplies ?
4 Appt or Trxn per Hr x 12 Hr/Day = 48 Appointments or Transactions: What about persons #49, 50, 51 ? Their 2A Rights are effectively Denied or Prohibited
Why aren't we pushing for'Fit" that includes and consider ability of different stores/ranges to have more than a single server/attendant performing transactions simultaneously ?
Why aren't we pushing that different stores have different number of workstations, different linear fit of counter space and general Sq-Ft of store that allow for different abilities to
provide for distancing ?
Why haven't we articulated the All / Nearly All shooting ranges include enumerated, separately identified shooting stations that are already 6-10 Ft apart and thus provide for distancing ?
And at least at Indoor ranges, barriers between stations ?
The Judge has provide a number of opportunities asking "Is there anything else that you would object to in ..."
Our side seems to be under prepared for answering / proposing these Hygienic conditions that acheive the goal with High Fit / Low Burdening of our Rights
Appreciated the Judges Points at 11:20 about scrutiny and potential for under-appreciating these 2A rights in MA and 'Slow walking' such things...
I think we could make more forceful and more detailed arguments to 'Fit' rather than arguing for Strict Scrutiny.
A missed Opportunity I think
Last edited:
Judge hammering the state's attorney asking how the state's original order meets the "substantial fit" portion of intermediate scrutiny.
Lank
NES Member
It should, but it will not embarrass the state. They could care less.
