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

The more I think about this, the less do I like it, even though our side technically "won".

If we had outright lost, at least that could have been explained with "cause gunz", and anyone would understand it was a biased/wrong decision.

But this "win" is simply arbitrary. Why 4 transactions per hour? Why not 3? Or 5? It's completely arbitrary, and this ruling says it's completely fine with some random arbitrary number when it comes to restricting gun rights. I really don't like it.
 
It's kind of vague from the post what exactly the LGS heard from the town. It also lacks specificity, like who from the town? What specific name and agency from the state? What exactly was said? "We are expecting an appeal" or "The office of the AGs office has notified us they are preparing an appeal?". People fill in all sorts of blanks.

I have followed up on one situation where I actually saw the written info from the state on the gunshop info and it was substantially different from what was being presented "as fact" by "those that had heard".

Don't move the goalposts. Your initial comment stated that it was on speculation alone, even though I had posted the LGS received the info from their town.

I really wouldn't care at all that you missed that info if you weren't so condescending in your response to that post.

Now, after it was pointed out to you, that the information wasn't just on speculation and the LGS heard it from their town. You are saying the information isn't specific enough for your liking and you want specific names of people involved.

I don't have that info, and I'm certainly not going to track it down to appease you.

I posted the info here because I heard from an LGS, that their town told them the state IS working on an appeal. I thought some people might be interested in having that info. You could have respectfully asked for more info and I probably would have tried to acquire it. You chose to be condescending instead.

In the future I'll try to make sure I read your mind before posting and provide you with all the required information.... Or, maybe you could learn to nicely ask people for information.
 
Imagine if every firearm owner blocked a road in a move of defiance!

Don't worry ofisker, we aren't infringing on anyone's right to drive an automo'sbeal!
 
The pushback from the plaintiffs in the hearing on this point was, to say the least, rather lackluster.
Well, first judges don't like drama queens. If the attorney objects, it's an objection. Judges like Woodlock don't like to use the drama queen std of Objection. Bigger Objection. Biggest Objection. But wait, there is bigger objection... It was objected to after the judge said he already was going to do it. And I come back to this being chess and not checkers.

Let's see what happens next.
 
The more I think about this, the less do I like it, even though our side technically "won".

If we had outright lost, at least that could have been explained with "cause gunz", and anyone would understand it was a biased/wrong decision.

But this "win" is simply arbitrary. Why 4 transactions per hour? Why not 3? Or 5? It's completely arbitrary, and this ruling says it's completely fine with some random arbitrary number when it comes to restricting gun rights. I really don't like it.
Every one hates it. But one can hate it and realize it's a big deal that we got this. That's hopefully the point I hope I make to everyone.
 
Imagine if every firearm owner blocked a road in a move of defiance!

Don't worry ofisker, we aren't infringing on anyone's right to drive an automo'sbeal!
You'd piss off all the non-gun owners, drop a gift into the laps of MA.gov and the MSM (but I repeat myself) and probably give a ton of LEO's a bunch of OT that they wouldnt have had otherwise.
 
At the next hearing can evidence be submitted showing that the AG has a very clear anti gun 2ND amendmendment agenda ?

Things like letters sent out to distributors like target sports midway and the like ?

A copy of the letter sent by the legeslature after her stunt 4 years ago ?

Time to burn the witch.
 
I think we all now understand how monumental a win involving anything firearm related is in our court system.
Even more so that it took place here in MA.
I mean this in all sincerity.
Thank you to all those involved![thumbsup]

It's just that the judge did not or could not see what we all view as an extreme bias towards retail firearm establishments.
Why are these restrictions only placed on them.

Flower and ice cream shops are going to be mobbed this weekend and they have none of these "appropriate" restrictions.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that can see this clear as day.
But a federal judge with all his knowledge and wisdom somehow can't see it...
 
Last edited:
Even better.

The gun shops are restricted to the hours open before the shutdown and aren’t allowed to extend their hours.

This is not the case, all gun shops can be open 9am-9pm according to the judge's ruling. The state proposed what you described and the judge rejected it as insufficiently specific under the federal rules of civil procedure. He suggested 9am-9pm and the state basically assented.
 
I think we all now understand how monumental a win involving anything firearm related is in the court system.
Even more so that it took place here in MA.
I mean this in all sincerity. Thank you.

It just that the judge did not or could not see what we all view as an extreme bias towards retail firearm establishments.
Why are these restrictions only placed on them.

Flower shops are going to be mobbed this weekend and ice cream shops as well have none of these "appropriate" restrictions.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that can see this clear as day.
But a judge with all his knowledge and wisdom somehow doesn't see it...
During the hearing, the defendants made their case by saying that a typical gun transaction involves more 1 to 1 contact than with other retailers. Many guns passed back and forth to hold, license checks, and background check need to be done, explaining about safety and function etc. Although I still think this is BS, the defendants did a decent job arguing this and the judge used that on his basis. By the time we our attorney got a chance to mention this doesn't always apply due to ammunition and accessory sales, that would be much quicker, Woodlock had already made up his mind on it. We should have brought up that fact sooner. Hopefully guys won't be rushing in just to buy some ammo or to look around and leave initial appointments available to people that are picking up previously ordered gun or new gun purchases.
 
I guess that the state and the judge assume that everyone going into a gun shop is buying a firearm.
It seems this case was more about covid-19 in relation to show how a gun shop operates and the likelihood of virus transmission, instead of a 2A rights issue.

Opening is a great win for the shops.

The infringements were always a secondary or not as much of an issue in the eyes of the court.
Most of us look at it as why are there any restrictions.
They look at it as these seem reasonable.

I guess they have never have been to a Home Depot or Lowes and seen a guy tool shopping!
That fifteen minutes with lots of tool handling taking place would seem a little short in the time frame! [rofl2]
 
Last edited:
Now, after it was pointed out to you, that the information wasn't just on speculation and the LGS heard it from their town. You are saying the information isn't specific enough for your liking and you want specific names of people involved.
What I am saying is I consider the information to be of questionable veracity absent specifics. I was not asking for names; just pointing out that without them this resembles "friend of a friend knows someone that knows..." sort of information.

That was not intended as an insult or condescending, just a difference of opinion.

I have compared verifiable source information with what an official "in the know" was saying and the difference was significant, so I have some experience with this sort of thing.
 
Maybe, for the benefit of the folks here who are upset or frustrated with yesterday's results, someone with practical knowledge of the legal process could explain a bit about the differences in the contours of the types and specificity of relief that can be granted via a TRO as opposed to a permanent order?

Can we assume that judge Woodlock is very much aware of the 2A case law which exists in the 1st Circuit and as a result, he was being particularly careful about crafting a TRO that had the best chance of surviving appellate scrutiny? Clearly, had the judge given us a TRO that reopened gun shops with no particularized restriction only to have it overturned on appeal, we would be much worse off than is his more narrow TRO survives appeal.

Clearly, we understand the ulterior motives of the AG in trying to create disabilities for firearms-related businesses, however, the Assistant AG handling the case yesterday provided credible answers about the unique nature of firearms purchase transactions relative to say, a liquor purchase. On that basis, the judge had little choice but to accept those arguments if his order has any chance of surviving appeal.
 
TRO is just that - temporary. Designed to prevent further harm to one of the parties in the case until the full case can be tried on its merits.

The judge clearly saw this was motivated by the states animosity towards firearms and mentioned that during the hearing. He also commented about how rights need to be protected even if those rights are not popular with some of the population. He knows exactly what is going on, and was clearly not fooled by "The regulations changed because the webmaster was provided with updated versions to post".
 
It didn't even MAKE the Taunton Guzzle-ette this AM. Above the fold was how excited Tauntonians were to wear masks 24/7. Oh and probably 15 stories/editorials (hard to tell the difference) about how Trump is getting away with murder and how anyone who even utters his name should be unfairly prosecuted by the FBI and Justice Dept.

My wife gets the paper. If it wasn't for the damend Word Jumble and a few of the Funnies, it would be 100% unreadable.
The People's Daily had an article about the decision but I had a hard time reading it as I was repeatedly distracted by the photo of the girls in tight dresses spraying champagne.
NES 05082020-2.jpg
 
TRO is just that - temporary. Designed to prevent further harm to one of the parties in the case until the full case can be tried on its merits.

The judge clearly saw this was motivated by the states animosity towards firearms and mentioned that during the hearing. He also commented about how rights need to be protected even if those rights are not popular with some of the population. He knows exactly what is going on, and was clearly not fooled by "The regulations changed because the webmaster was provided with updated versions to post".

He didn't need to split the baby, but he did, and we got left with an arm, maybe a few fingers.
 
During the hearing, the defendants made their case by saying that a typical gun transaction involves more 1 to 1 contact than with other retailers. Many guns passed back and forth to hold, license checks, and background check need to be done, explaining about safety and function etc.

Defendants have never shopped at Four Seasons unless it was at off hours during the week.
 
Well, first judges don't like drama queens. If the attorney objects, it's an objection. Judges like Woodlock don't like to use the drama queen std of Objection. Bigger Objection. Biggest Objection. But wait, there is bigger objection... It was objected to after the judge said he already was going to do it. And I come back to this being chess and not checkers.

Let's see what happens next.

[thumbsup] How not to object. I'm glad so many are involved in this discussion. Please consider supporting the Plaintiffs and their team as we go further.
Matt
 
This is not the case, all gun shops can be open 9am-9pm according to the judge's ruling. The state proposed what you described and the judge rejected it as insufficiently specific under the federal rules of civil procedure. He suggested 9am-9pm and the state basically assented.

Within the local zoning laws/ordinances of the locality.

Such firearms dealers are
limited to operating only during the period 9:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. daily, subject to any further land use limitations imposed
by the local government in the jurisdiction where the premises
are located as are currently in force.
 
Back
Top Bottom