• 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.

Discrimination from Baker Administration Shines Bright During Covid-19 Crisis

greencobra said:
we've all known who really runs the state for a while. maura is a helicopter governor and lingers off camera making sure bakers shirt is tucked in. i thought the judicial branch was suppose to be separate from the executive, no? it suppose to work at the state level also i thought.
Click to expand...
As the chief law enforcement position, the AG is an executive role. This is why they need to go in front of a court to hold people accountable when it is alleged they broke laws written by the legislature.

That said, the AG should also be subservient to the Governor, who is the Chief Executive of the Commonwealth.

Of course, the different between theory and practice is much smaller in theory than practice...
 
mpd61 said:
Unfortunately that WBZ piece (like most gun pieces) about Gunrunners in Middleboro was surficial and totally skipped the heart of the matter. Neither the Gov, or the shop owner touched on the DHS Guidelines which are the core of this issue. Vague references to the 2nd Amendment and the Governor lying that only "manufacturers" are exempt don't help. WBZ just made the Shop owner look like he was doing "back door deals" to the uninformed and easily duped public.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it didn't come off real well. Confused non-gun people are probably going to think something shady was going on there.

But good for John trying to do the right thing. Once this crazy virus madness is all over, I'll be paying his shop a visit to show we care.
 
What is deliberately missing form the media reports is that the governor's office released a list that is an exact copy of the federal one, targeting only gun stores and ranges from removal.

The 2A has always been a "Right of the second class" (I think Justice Thomas referred to lower courts as "getting the message" on that), with the issue of rational basis/intermediate scrutiny/strict scrutiny still under debate and getting mixed judicial decisions. What is clear though is that the 1A is a "Right of the first class" subject to strict scrutiny.

SCOTUS has long held that any restriction on speech must be "content neutral", and government actions based on the content of speech are right out.

Strip clubs are a form on expression, and thus speech. Excluding them from the MA small business loan program is, in fact, content motivated government action against a particular form of speech that it does not approve of. This becomes even clearer if there is any sort of media company producing videos that gets a loan and a porn producer denied the loan based on the content of his speech.

The same logic could be applied to gun stores, however, that would be a bit more of a reach calling the action of selling a gun "speech".
 
I'm praying that any legal action here is headed up by Comm2A. I feel that in the past we've been bitten by some overzealous "first to file a lawsuit" that muddies the waters with overly broad or irrational arguments that go over in court like a lead balloon. I'm also wary of a "we're all working together" = "edited by committee" where the same crap seems to float in. I'd really like to see a clean and very specifically targeted legal action taken by the people who have proven to us that they can do so effectively.
 
M125X said:
If all the gun shops (4 seasons included) banded together and refused to close there would be no issue.
Click to expand...
If you owned a shop owner would you be prepared for the delay and legal fees if the state were to summarily revoke your dealers license?

It is easy to declare an action risk free when you are not the one taking the "non risk".
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Reversal via legislative process is HARD. For example, the Colorado 15 round mag laws got several legislators recalled, and had one resign so a D could be appointed to the seat rather than have a pesky election. Despite public sentiment sufficient to make that happen, there was no action in the legislature to even attempt to reverse that law.
Click to expand...

We can defend the same battle and win 100 times, but all it takes is a loss at the 101st time and none of it matters, you will have always lost and there's no going back on it.
 
Radtekk said:
Meanwhile in Tennessee there's a Con-carry bill pending...
Click to expand...
Sure rub it in. I have heard that there are some a** Hole gun owners down there that are actually against this. Don't let them get away with stopping it!
 
Rob Boudrie said:
If you owned a shop owner would you be prepared for the delay and legal fees if the state were to summarily revoke your dealers license?
Click to expand...
Nope. Dimples the Tyrant has unlimited funds and unrestrained power with which to close you down, bankrupt you and otherwise make your life a living Hell... and you know damn well that she'll enjoy every minute while doing it. [thinking]

Welcome to the People's Republic of Massachusetts. [crying]
 
It is very easy to declare that others should take the risk. I was talking to one shop owner and customers would tell him selling a certain gun was "no risk". So, he offered a deal - the customer could sign a contract agreeing to indemnify the shop owner for any legal fees and penalties assessed as a result of that "no risk" action and he would sell the gun. Despite the customers (more than one used the "no risk" argument) claiming there was exactly "no risk", none ever took him up on the offer.
 
Last edited:
She doesn't even have to go to court - just order the FRB to revoke the licenses so the dealers can prepare for a fair hearing when the civic minded AG attempting to protect the public and the evil shopkeep who wants to arm wife beaters, cop killers and Chester the Molester can appear before a judge who will wonder why he is even wasting his/her time hearing the case.

Although slightly off topic, one very qualified attorney who has handled many licensing cases told me the judges basically consider LTC appeals a waste of their time.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
She doesn't even have to go to court - just order the FRB to revoke the licenses so the dealers can prepare for a fair hearing when the civic minded AG attempting to protect the public and the evil shopkeep who wants to arm wife beaters, cop killers and Chester the Molester can appear before a judge who will wonder why he is even wasting his/her time hearing the case.

Although slightly off topic, one very qualified attorney who has handled many licensing cases told me the judges basically consider LTC appeals a waste of their time.
Click to expand...

you are unfortunately correct!
 
And that's precisely what they have done.



Rob Boudrie said:
She doesn't even have to go to court - just order the FRB to revoke the licenses so the dealers can prepare for a fair hearing when the civic minded AG attempting to protect the public and the evil shopkeep who wants to arm wife beaters, cop killers and Chester the Molester can appear before a judge who will wonder why he is even wasting his/her time hearing the case.

Although slightly off topic, one very qualified attorney who has handled many licensing cases told me the judges basically consider LTC appeals a waste of their time.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1585943252608.jpg
    FB_IMG_1585943252608.jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 7
Rob Boudrie said:
She doesn't even have to go to court - just order the FRB to revoke the licenses so the dealers can prepare for a fair hearing when the civic minded AG attempting to protect the public and the evil shopkeep who wants to arm wife beaters, cop killers and Chester the Molester can appear before a judge who will wonder why he is even wasting his/her time hearing the case.

Although slightly off topic, one very qualified attorney who has handled many licensing cases told me the judges basically consider LTC appeals a waste of their time.
Click to expand...
Clarity on this. The license is held by the local licensing authority which is the chief of police. Relevant language from chap 140
from sec 122: "The chief of police or the board or officer having control of the police in a city or town, or persons authorized by them..."
from sec 123: "Licensees found to be in violation of this section shall be subject to the suspension or permanent revocation of such license issued under section 122 and to the provisions of section 128. "
sec 125 "The officials authorized to issue a license under section one hundred and twenty-two, after due notice to the licensee and reasonable opportunity for him to be heard, may declare his license forfeited, or may suspend his license for such period of time as they may deem proper, upon satisfactory proof that he has violated or permitted a violation of any condition thereof or has violated any provision of this chapter, or has been convicted of a felony. The pendency of proceedings before a court shall not suspend or interfere with the power to declare a forfeiture. If the license is declared forfeited, the licensee shall be disqualified to receive a license for one year after the expiration of the term of the license so forfeited. The commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services shall be notified in writing of any forfeiture under this section."

To be clear what this all says. Licensing authority is the chief of police or equivalent. Licensing authority grants, revokes or suspends licenses. There is DUE PROCESS around such suspension or revocation. "after due notice ... and reasonable opportunity ... to be heard".

The state does not get to revoke or suspend and they cannot do it precipitously. Also, I see nothing in section 123 that would require us to shut down during this time hence it is not a violation of the terms of my license and therefore no grounds exist to revoke or suspend.

Of course I am under no illusions. This is MA and the "GUN" doctrine applies at all times. They will revoke at the state level and assume the courts will back them up.
 
CrackPot said:
This is MA and the "GUN" doctrine applies at all times. They will revoke at the state level and assume the courts will back them up.
Click to expand...

Yup. And the legislature will sit back and do nothing.

In Massachusetts we only have 1 branch of government. It's called the Executivejudicialegislative.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
This is a joke, right?
Click to expand...
You dont get to quote that one line out of context. As I said at the end of my post "Of course I am under no illusions. This is MA and the "GUN" doctrine applies at all times. They will revoke at the state level and assume the courts will back them up."
 
In all honesty................
After 2016, the legislature might as well stay home. They're all done. Maura has this, and Charlie has his troopers get her lunch
 
I'm hoping this over the top in your face f***ery comes back to bite them hard in court.

Look at NY, they backed away to try and moot the current case at SCotUS and now their similar over the top f***ery is probably going to push the court to have to make a ruling about at least scrutiny due to the state's demonstration of a willingness to f*** around whenever it feels like it.
 
Waher said:
I'm hoping this over the top in your face f***ery comes back to bite them hard in court.

Look at NY, they backed away to try and moot the current case at SCotUS and now their similar over the top f***ery is probably going to push the court to have to make a ruling about at least scrutiny due to the state's demonstration of a willingness to f*** around whenever it feels like it.
Click to expand...
What is "least scrutiny?". I am familiar with rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny but am not aware of "least scrutiny" being used in legal filings or decisions. Please enlighten.
 
Let’s see how the NRA tries to help us. At this point I am ready to give up on them and solely support in state gun right orgs..
 

Similar threads

Suspect Dead After Opening Fire on Officer During NY Traffic Stop
Replies
5
Views
256
kevin9
kevin9
Chicago police officer shot dead and has car taken during commute home: Officials
Replies
1
Views
162
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
185
AJK129
AJK129
Trump administration official Mike Gill is critically-ill after being shot during carjacking by suspect who killed another car owner: UPDATE - DEAD
Replies
19
Views
792
T-Unit
T
Shipping gold chain from Fla to Ma?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
955
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom